Now, before asking me to do stuff that I am already doing. How about you give me some quotes from me that have "unsupported arguments, claims and assertions"?

I know you asked for some, but I will provide all of your unsupported arguments, claims and assertions. I have thoroughly reviewed ALL of your posts in this thread and cannot find support for these arguments, claims and assertions which means they are unsupported. I have removed the few statements made by Lukvance that are not unsupported arguments, claims or assertions.

Here are all of your unsupported arguments, claims and assertions in this thread alone:

So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? YesHow can you prove it?The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.Or using the ontological argument.If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.Or using the start of everything. Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.Or using the "bad" in the world.Nothing can be made without consequences. What would happen to a child rapist who committed suicide right after raping the child? God (an entity external to our brain) must exist to execute his judgement.Or using the design argument.There is more order than chaos in what you see everyday. There must be something that thought about the laws of everything. That "thing" is God and is outside your mind (he made it)

Great.God is a little like math. You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives.... __________

Hmm we (believers) have access to some part of the code that non believer don't have access to.__________

Note that it was the angel who interacted, not him. Mary being pregnant is a miracle. Miracles happen in the world every day. I think that they do because we believer can access that part of the code that non believer don't have access to.

I said that you'll hear him...I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives.... _________

God won't protect people against their will. He can protect you.__________

Me or any believer (Mary was a believer) SO God worked through her to bring Jesus into this world. He didn't make Jesus appear out of nowhere. (even if he could've)

He made the universe, creating, as the real sense of the term, what we call the initial movement. He has sent people who interacted directly with him (prophets) and these people used their voice to tell the world what he wanted them to hear thus interacting with the world. He was made flesh in Jesus and interacted with thousands of people. Today there are people we call saints that can be used as examples (like mother Theresa) of how God would want us to behave. By using them he interact with us. And there are miracles. Like the Eucharist, every day where you can physically touch God and look at him and taste him. But that's only for true believers, the OT III's of Christianity And as it is said so perfectly in the catechism : "28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind"" (156 : http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#156)

He is using proof that I am not. (even if he is using some that I am)_________

My proofs works for any kind of God you wish to conjure, as long as there is only one God (no multiple deity sh**)________

…but you cut right before the good part. Immaterial beings, you can't cut my phrase like that and conclude something so much out of context.________

Caveat? Irrelevant? Easy to say....way harder to prove.________

in conclusion you are wrong. You imagining and cutting stuff as it would please you best. I gave you things to think about...philosophical proof of the existence of God outside of your mind. You just spurred "NO! because someone else said NO already" even if that someone and me are not talking about the same thing.

If the resurrection of Christ can be shown as a real event in history, then the existence of God is demanded as an explanation for the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is and can be shown as a fact of history. Therefore, God exists.

It is the "resurrected" part that make God exist in that proof. Did the clown killed someone? If so, based on my logic (I am trying to explain my logic to you here, using your example since you seem to have not understand it) If we find someone murdered exactly the same way the clown depicted in the book did and no one else could murder this person exactly that way. Then yes, the clown exist.

Basically, it is a page of nice-sounding words, psychobabble, contradictions and double think. Firstly, you have to already believe in a god, because god won't pay any attention to you otherwise.

That's not true. Proof?

Quote

Secondly, you have to think that everything that happens is already up to god, because god will not pay any attention to you anyway.

That's not true either. Proof?

Quote

Thirdly, you have to realize that prayer is not communicating with god, because god does not listen to human prayers and then change the world to suit our needs.

That's certainly not true either. Proof?

Quote

Which makes prayer as useful (or as useless) as meditation, listening to music, getting high, having sex, watching a movie, going for a run, playing a video game or anything else that people do to forget their problems for a while.

No. Prayer is way more useful than all of that combined! You are concluding on bases that are not ye been proved.

Quote

Prayer just makes us humans more able to accept the world that god has made. Apparently, the job of human beings is to adjust our minds to accept the world as it is, and make our peace with that. How very Buddhist. How very Hindu. How Islamic.

This is just you spitting words without backing them with proof.

Quote

Because prayer has absolutely no measurable effect on the well-being of people-- prayer does not do anything. Prayers to god will not keep the tsunami from sweeping away your family. Prayers to god will not keep the tsunami from sweeping away your neighbor's family. Prayers to god will not heal anybody of anything, unless the prayer happens to randomly coincide with one of god's capricious miracles.

Again this is just you spitting words without backing them with proof. You seem to do that a lot.

Quote

For a lot of people,

Because you know them all?

Quote

even those who want to believe in god, prayer is probably less effective than just sitting quietly and daydreaming for a few minutes. Like someone on this board suggested, there are probably a number of people bowing their heads in church and not feeling anything happening at all, and thinking they are the only ones. But they could be the majority!

Or they could not exist at all. Speculation?

Quote

Seriously, if prayers will not make god do something people want (and I agree that prayers have no effect on god's behavior) I am not sure what prayers to god are supposed to accomplish. Maybe praying is just to convince people that they are doing something religious when they are not in church.

Maybe you are wrong and prayer have effect on the world around you.

Quote

Since god made the universe and is in control of it all, everything bad or good that happens in the universe is god imposing his will on you.

No it is not. Again one of your many conclusions without proof.

Quote

That makes prayer even more a moot point, right?

That would if you were right. But you are not.

Quote

Devoutly believing people plead and beg in prayer for god to save their dying children, and yet the children die anyway.

Prove it, back it up with numbers. You might be surprised by the numbers.

Quote

Meanwhile god stands there not imposing his will, except that he is imposing it, by creating the poverty, disease, drought and famine in the first place.

God only allowed those to exist because he does not want to impose his will. Poverty, disease, drought and famine are consequences of sin. Then again, you should prove that God created poverty before using it as an argument.

Quote

Doesn't he impose his will on people all over the world, unbeliever and believer alike, all the time?

No. I love those yes or no questions!

Quote

God sent that hurricane, wildfire, tsunami or landslide to destroy your town, so, he imposed his will on you.

Prove that it was God who sent it and maybe you could use it as an argument.

Quote

It was god who had you select that winning lotto ticket or get that promotion at work, or have that successful childbirth. So, clearly, he imposed his will on you.

Of course not! They asked him! It was their will to win the lotto ticket or get a promotion or have a successful childbirth.

Quote

Certainly, there have to be a few people who did not want to win the lottery, or get a promotion or have a baby. But there is god, sticking his big honker in people's business again.

They did not want it? They did not get it.

Quote

Obviously, I don't think that there is a god in charge of the universe. But for people who do, yeah, he is definitely imposing his will.

Let people who do believe in God make their own conclusion, do not impose to them the twisted type of conclusion that you parade here.

Usually I let go of all those claims you bring up and don't comment on them. But they are starting to steer the conversation away from the real question people have. You give your own answers to question that you ask yourself and pose them as truth. You know that refuting all of them like I just did, take a lot of time and you count on that to let your twisted ideas in the mind of others.

Then it will not show as a resurrection in the history books. It would show as a guy being taken off the cross alive and hidden for 3 days and whatever alternate explanations that you can "think of". Historians are scientists too, many people forget that. You telling them "hey I have an alternate explanation" is like you telling Einstein "hey I have an alternate explanation!"

If you are asking "does praying have an effect"? The answer is Yes.(yes or no question yay!) It will have an effect. Maybe not the effect you think it would have.It is because prayer is a good thing for you and for the others. It's like the chip you receive after x days in AA meetings. It doesn't stop you physically to stop drinking. It is a reminder that we are lucky to have what we have. By praying we are making ourselves more aware of the ones who needs our help. I was in bed one day, sick. Once I knew there was a group of people praying for me, I felt better. It is a good feeling to not be forgotten in our time of suffering.

Are you saying that a. the benefits of prayer are for the person praying (maybe concentrating on other's problems and not their own) and for the person prayed for (so they feel that they are part of a sort of family and loved) ORb. That the above benefits apply but that god throws in his help to to start and fix problems? If so, what does he actually do. If not, then why pray at all - why not just ring up and sick person or go and visit them and tell them how much you care?

b. Praying help more than not praying and just doing. Knowing that the group was praying for me made me feel better. If they were to visit or ring me I might have used too much energy and felt differently. Plus it is cool to have the benefit of the prayer without having the time it requires me to do it. It's like a free bonus! Of course praying won't prevent you to call or visit. In fact, prayer might encourage you to call or visit more often.

2) they had brought to boy to Jesus, who... according to the story... had to ask what was wrong with the boy which can be deduced that he was not previously aware of any prayer from the boy (or the father, for that matter).

Or that he needed everyone to know what exactly was going on. Remember he was a teacher. Teachers usually knows the problem and the solution and ask the students to discover them "with him"._________

But here's another hypothetical: Let's say you didn't pray to get better, and your mother next to you prayed for you to get better. If you got better, was your mother's prayer answered, or... again according to your previous statements... you must have become better through other means due to the fact that your concept of "God" would not violate your free will?

I get sick and get better all the time. I just had my gall bladder removed back in December. I recovered (quite quickly, too, compared to other people I know who had the same operation) without the aid of prayer.

The difference I have from the testimony of my Doctor friends is that people that pray are usually more enjoyable than the others. Even if there are some who pray and are still grumpy they say.

All I read here are accusations without nothing to support them.Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains." with your pie. Build from that. Then after we discuss, prove your point by pointing my mistakes instead of inventing some that are not there.

I agree with you, existence in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind. But it is a special case here. We are talking about the greatest possible being. When we talk about that being and because he is the greatest, this rule does not apply.__________

There seems to be only ONE "flaw" that you underlined (and I debunked). And you make it look like there are 3. Not cool man, not cool.________

As has been repeatedly stated by multiple posters, you cannot think an entity in to existence separate from the brain it was conceptualized in, "greatest possible" or otherwise. You have provided zero evidence to prove otherwise.

You are wrong. We live in a world where God exist. He even exist outside of your brain. Could we stick to the subject and try not to have to read phrases like the one you just wrote? You invent an situation (perfect world) then you say it does not exist. Waste of time.

1. Work out (by whatever means) something that ought to exist2. Devise and experiment that might detect it3. Run the experiment and see what happens. Get others to do the same4. Compare results with other researchers and publish in a peer-reviewed journalThere you are, Luk. That's how you get from idea to proof. Notice Higgs wasn't allowed to go from stage 1 to Nobel Prize - you can't skip the middle bit. So devise and experiment and you could even recruit people here to take part, but it must have an objective way to confirm you have found a god.

Of course I can refute your statement. We are not talking about non existence of something we are talking about proof of existence of something. You say that we can use instruments to prove the existence of poltergeist and that's a lie.

Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”Do background research: “Most people who get sick go the the hospital and get cured by following medical assistance, but some of them just pray and get cures without medical assistance.What is that force that cure them?"

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with God.This would explain why God is living outside our head.

Here is your counter argument. The rest of what you said was (for me) just you showing of.You counter argument suppose that miracle works only a small percentage of the time when in fact it works every time!I think you misunderstand the procedure that you have to follow to get the miracle.Could you give us an example of when a miracle doesn't work?

You should be able to understand that the miracle is just the observable effect that shows you that God exist.It is just like this little line in the LHChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider result screen that shows you that Higgs Boson exist.

You need to explain in what way Lourdes serves as a way to measure miracles.

It is where the equipment is.

Quote

What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'?

Same as the measurement unit of an Higgs Boson. One? I'm not sure if its apply.

Quote

Percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing at Lourdes vs. percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing in the general populace of the globe? I dunno but that seems reasonable, doesn't it?

No.

Quote

what is the process for making a measurement?

Reply #203

Quote

Perhaps you can try it like this:<You insert something here> is to Lourdes as 'the fact that the energy levels of the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson (e.g. the curve of the path of other particles that are generated at such high energies gets affected in a way that objectively either coincides or does not coincide with the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson) can only be done at the LHC' is to the Higgs boson.

The fact that God's action can be surely detected by using all the "tools" present in Lourdes is to miracles as 'the fact that the energy levels of the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson (e.g. the curve of the path of other particles that are generated at such high energies gets affected in a way that objectively either coincides or does not coincide with the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson) can only be done at the LHC' is to the Higgs boson.[/i]We could detect God's action in the world (the proof of his existence) anywhere but would need to move all this equipment.There are other places than Lourdes (ex : the Vatican) who has the necessary equipment to detect it.

I understand that you want to think a miracle to be something that can fail. But the truth is that "failed miracles" are simply not miracles. Just like "failed Higgs Boson" are simply not Higgs bosons.________

Again you are counting the number of "non miracle" it's like counting the number of "non Higgs Boson" Here is my question, if I were to tell you that each and everyone of the little lines seen on the screen that are not the Higgs Boson are "failed Higgs Boson" will the Higgs Boson be less existent?________

I understand the mistake you made. It comes from the fact that you think a "failed miracle" is any experiment in detecting a miracle that has failed. Isn't that like you telling me that every "failed Higgs Boson" is a failed experiment in detecting the "Higgs Boson"? It doesn't make sense.________

What kind of experiment performed at Lourdes is not controlled? Isn't the only thing that scientists do at LHC is say whether there's a known explanation or not for that line on the screen?________

If I resume. Your counter argument is based on "non miracle". This make as much sense as a "non Higgs Boson" (meaning all the others fundamental particles)You say that "non miracle" are too many for miracle to even be considered.The other counter argument that you put forward was that the scientist just say it is not anything else than a miracle so miracles don't exist.It makes as much sense as if you were saying that the scientist just say it is not anything else than a Higgs Boson so Higgs Boson don't exist.Finally you say that the experience does not have a control group when you know that these experiences are conducted regularly in the Vatican.

Of course there is data produces by that experiments. Of course there is a control group (in the case of the woman healing her hand the control group was other women that had their hand crushed and did not pray God to heal them) and the results are statistically significant (meaning that there are more people instantly healed after praying God than people instantly healed after not praying God)All of those are on paper. And you can reproduce the experiment as many times as you want to have the same result.________

You are having the same trouble than jaimelhers. Thinking as miracle as something that it is not. The way I present miracle in my scientific method proof is the same way we present Higgs boson or gravity in their scientific method proof.

I gave you the link in the post #203. If you need more information about one of these "instruments" please ask away. But I think they are very explicit._________

To the question "What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'? I answer "some of the measurements that apply to the miracle are quantifiable properties like the time it took to happen, people it happen to, how was the element before the miracle (size, weight, lenght texture...etc), how long the miracle last"_________

That is, indeed, incorrect. Most of the miracle does not happen at Lourdes. They happen all around the world. Consequently most people that are seeking miracles are outside of Lourdes._________

People at Lourdes are measuring if it's the hand of God or not. People in the LHC are measuring if it's the Higgs Boson or not.There are rules (synonym of steps or processes) that one event must follow before being called Higgs Boson. There are rules (synonym of steps or processes) that one event must follow before being called miracle. Those rules are described in the link I provided in reply #203.

There is not one equipment but a multitude that are used to determine if the event is a miracle. They even use chaplets, holly water, tuniques, shoes... I mean every element involved in the finding is a "tool" that is used to find out if it's a miracle or not. Granted, the scientific tools as we know it stops when it comes to the Bishop to decide if it's from God or not but some other tools, spiritual ones, take place. Sometime the event is not granted the miracle status even if there is no other scientific explanation for it. That is why I include the bishop/prayer and his peers in the discovering of the action of God on earth.________

For example the person who couldn't move her hand could move it after the miracle happened. The cure was "instantaneous". They use a "clock" to measure the time.The hand cannot move "the process not started yet"The hand can move "the process started"________

For example the hand of the woman. It's the element that God "touched" and healed and that is proof of his action in this world. Proving by the same act, that he exist outside our mind

The theory for miraculous event was "It is something to do with God."There are books written on the theory of miracles.In conclusion there is as much scientific explanation of what a miracle is than there is scientific explanation of what gravity is.

How is prayer used to measure the miracle? Is there a specific expected response from a patient with an immobile hand due to recitation of the Hail Mary over the Glory Be or something?Try to get as specific as you can get.

In prayer you have the answer of your question from God. If you ask him "was it your doing?" you will get the answer. Most people like you believe that it is only one person who prays before giving the characteristic of miracle to an event when in fact there are many. It doesn't matter how you pray God, as long as most prayers have the same answer.The miracle must not have "evil" consequences. For example : A healed hand must not commit murder right after if it wants to be recognize as a miracle.

When you say cure, did you mean the observation of the disease disappearing? What kind of a clock? When was it last calibrated? In what way were other possible explanations for the restoration of movement of the hand restored?

Yes the disease disappear. When I said clock I meant time. If the disease takes too much time to disappear it might not be a miracle. The hand could have been restored by Vodou or things of that order, in this case there are no miracles.

Were these observations done in the same room? At the same time? Maybe same time of day? How many observers were there? Did they all agree? If they disagreed, what was the source of that discrepancy? Can that discrepancy be accounted for? Was this patient's diet controlled throughout this whole process? What environments was this patient exposed to during the time of the experiment?

All of that information is in the medical files of the desired miracle. But I know for a fact that miracles takes time and many people, so not only one observer and not only one room or one day.

Have there been other, similar patients that have been observed in a similar way, and did they have the same outcome

This information is in the files of the desired miracle. I believe that 2 miracles can be similar. If there was another case of healing similar than the event studied, it might not be considered as a miracle.

How does one identify that it is indeed god interacting with the element, and not any other mystical, powerful, unnatural entity, or some mundane, natural entity?

It's in prayer. The event is presented to the closest priest[1] who then contact his peers and together they pray to identify that it is indeed god interacting with the element, and not any other mystical, powerful, unnatural entity.

Actually, that's the point, I do need the explanation. It isn't enough for you to just say that you moved the tree on your own because I couldn't see what actually moved the tree. I am not willing to remain ignorant of what actually happened simply because you think it's enough to just tell me that you did it.

So, are you saying that not knowing how I moved the tree makes me nonexistent? Because that is the question asked here and answered by miracle, the existence of God.

The burden of proof is not for me to wear it has already been worn by the advocate defending the miracle case.What you all seem to miss is that I am not the one claiming these are miracle. I am only reporting them to you. All your counter arguments have already been submitted and dismissed by professional people on the matter.

What? you mean that you never heard of miracles still occurring today? That some more "proof" of the existence of miracles are discovered everyday!? I am saying in analogy : Miracle = Higgs Boson.Proof of Higgs Boson = Proof of miracles. (I don't know how to properly say that in English, I want to make sure that there is no ambiguity miracles and higgs bosons are 2 completely different things who share similar attributes.)

The nature of miracles :"The term contrary to nature does not mean "unnatural" in the sense of producing discord and confusion. The forces of nature differ in power and are in constant interaction. This produces interferences and counteractions of forces. This is true of mechanical, chemical, and biological forces. So, also, at every moment of the day I interfere with and counteract natural forces about me. I study the properties of natural forces with a view to obtain conscious control by intelligent counteractions of one force against another. Intelligent counteraction marks progress in chemistry, in physics — e.g., steam locomotion, aviation — and in the prescriptions of the physician. Man controls nature, nay, can live only by the counteraction of natural forces. Though all this goes on around us, we never speak of natural forces violated. These forces are still working after their kind, and no force is destroyed, nor is any law broken, nor does confusion result. The introduction of human will may bring about a displacement of the physical forces, but no infraction of physical processes." More on: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

What if you are being unreasonable? What if every people who really looked into miracles tells you that you are unreasonable? Will you stop? I think not, I think you will still believe having super powers because it makes you stronger and without them you feel useless and alone.

Quote from: Lukvance

I could even tell you that there is no way you could convince me that the Higgs Boson exist. Or that we walked on the moon. I just have to say "your proof is not enough"

or I just have to say "your proof is not enough, show me real evidence!" again and again. No matter how much evidence you bring.

Quote from: Lukvance

Most miracles (actions of God in the world) are spiritual ones.

Means that most people get spiritually healed/touched by God. Nothing in relation to scientists. Scientist got spiritually healed/touched by God too! (Albert Einstein, Max Planck, William Thomson Kelvin to only quote a few)

People who were trying to find the "touch of God" were trying to match the observed properties of the events in Lourdes with the theorized "touch of God".You see? Same thing than the Higgs. There is no way around it.

You don't know what to expect because God is from an higher plane of existence than ours. All you can find is way that it wouldn't work not ways that it would.Until you have a better solution you will have to accept the one who is supported by people that are way more verse in these mater than the both of us combined.The argument of "we don't know where it's coming from" doesn't make sense because you don't know where it could be coming from. And if you knew then you would say it is not from God, it is from that source.The scientific experiment is based on the fact that they looked for all other possible source (physical or spiritual) and concluded that their theory (it was God's doing) was right.We have a hypothesisWe have tests available for this hypothesisThe event correspond to the hypothesis.We draw the conclusion that the event was God's doing, hence God exist in the world outside human brain.I just talked to one not so long ago and he reassured me that the way miracles are declared is MORE STRICT than the ones used for other scientific hypothesis.

Since Reply #203 I don't see much about how the scientific method I used does not satisfy your exigences for the existence of God outside your mind.I read a lot of people trying to "disprove" the pertinence of miracles but no one actually working on miracle cases.It's like trying to "disprove" the pertinence of using the LHC without actually knowing what it exactly do.

You yourself have stated that some things thought to be miracles from god were later found to have a scientific explanation. Why assume that this is any different?

For the same reason that some things thought to be the Higgs Boson were later found to not be it.

Quote

You keep stating that priests are the experts on miracle healings, because they pray and get information not available to scientists. If that is the case, how could "miracles" later have a scientific explanation? Did god give the priests wrong information? Or did the priests -gasp- make a mistake?

I don't remember saying that priest weren't scientists. They are a part of the scientific method I submitted to you. They are the experts when it comes to God maters.

Tomorrow the scientists might discover that the lady has a mutated gene in her blood that creates a substance that allowed her paralyzed hand to heal. They are able to synthesize the substance and it becomes available to medical doctors worldwide. Now everyone with paralysis becomes healed with a simple injection. Would the lady's healed hand still be a miracle from god?

They might, they might not. Until then it is a miracle. Like, until proven otherwise, the Higgs Boson has been found. We might (or might not) discover one day that it wasn't.

There is no way to independently verify if any one of the thousands of proposed "gods" was the actual cause of an unexplained occurrence. If you think so, then please demonstrate how exactly that would be done (without using an irrational argument from ignorance fallacy).

That is what Reply #203 is about. Scientific method.If you want to know more about how miracles are "stuff of science" I recommend you "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World" from Jacalyn Duffin.You have seen her testimony on Video already in this thread.

You really don't know how the priests can tell it is god who did the miracle.

That's not true.Let me get this straight once and for all :"you have stated many times, there is no way to tell what healed the hand, or how it was done." Is not something I stated. It is something you keep repeating, like if you say it enough time people will forget that I never said such things. From the beginning (Reply #203) I stated that we had a hypothesis and that the result of the experiment confirmed the hypothesis. WE KNOW WHAT HEALED THE HAND!

Now are you starting to understand why your approach isn't working? You're talking to a bunch of skeptics and atheists and telling us that you've proved that these happenings at Lourdes are miracles because some priests prayed and consulted and stated that some of them were. Yet we don't accept the authority of those priests to declare that. Frankly, I doubt most non-Catholics would accept their authority to declare such a thing.

That's the thing with Scientific method. You can reproduce it yourself if you want. There are books written about the specifics of the scientific method used for miracles (the Reply #393 address that)You can even use your own specialists!You don't have to "accept the priests are right"

You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.

Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".

The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body. And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)

I used the scientific method presented to me. I am still waiting for one flaw to be underlined on that method that I presented in Reply #203.You can claim that you already "proven" it flawed. But you only did it in your head. Not on paper.

Mostly what makes your claims useless is that they are based on your beliefs and not on reality. Mine are supported by countless papers and people that are involved each year in miracles.That is why I proposed to you that you talked directly to people involved with the miracle process, so you can educate yourself on the subject before saying that it is not science.

I am pretty sure that I can find the same flaws in the method that has been presented by Graybeard about gravity that you find about the one I presented about the action of God in the world.

You don't have to hand it to the theologians. You, yourself, alone could follow the sames rules these theologians follow and discern by yourself if it is from God or from some other deity. You could learn how these rules came by even if it takes a lifetime to do so, but ultimately you could learn them and use them to discern. When you have your answer you MUST present it to other theologians who will agree with your conclusion... or not. That's how science work, that's how miracles work too.

Apparently, The method concocted in #199 by Graybeard also depends on circular reasoning. His stated hypothesis was that It is something to do with relative masses, and in his conclusion, he stated that the force was Gravity (which is something that has to do with relative masses). He assumed that his conclusion (that it is something that has to do with relative masses) was true as part of his premise (that it is something that has to do with relative masses)

I think you mean that you believe that the investigation of a miracle is a genuine investigation, although any conclusion that "God did it." is open to question as (a) some other deity or supernatural being might have done it (ii) there is a natural but undiscovered cause.

There is a cause. God is the cause in the miracle cases.When you say "it can be some other deity" I read "It can be some other Boson" For me, it doesn't make sense because of all the research and test done about that particular event.I am not saying there are nothing else than God that could cure illness. I come from a culture where vodou is strong and can cure terminal illness. But in these cases there was always 3 victims who had to "pay the price" with their health.I am saying that in the particular case of miracles recognized by the Vatican, there are no more doubt that it is an act of God. Proof of his existence as an independent being.When you say "God did it" I read "It's the Higgs Boson" I understand that there is a theory about how saying "God did it" is not a valid answer in some cases. But there is at least one case where it can be said. Like saying "it's the Higgs Boson" is not a valid answer in some cases but there is at least one case where it can be said.

To be continued in Part 3

« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 12:12:36 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

You have to remember something. I am using the scientific experiment to prove the existence of God because you guys told me it was the only manner that you could eventually accept it. If you want to have another Go at the scientific experiment and use it to prove that the Higgs boson exist outside your body. I will then be able to follow "your" scientific method and adapt it to prove that God exist outside your body.What my scientific experiment boils down to is that I am not making an assumption as to what is causing people to heal. I hypothesized something that could cause this phenomenon, and cited experiments that had been done which supported my hypothesis. The mere fact that I suggests magic as a cause in my hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning.

What if the real source of healing is an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles? What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?

The key word here is do not APPEAR to be. You might want to look further into it. There is A LOT more that is done than you can think of. The few I know is just the surface.You ask what if the real source of healing is "an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles". What makes you think that God is not such an aloof entity?"What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?" Then you can add whatever you think is missing. But first, have a look at it! I'm telling you, it's huge!

I told you, add as much criteria as you see fit. The result will be the same.Nevertheless isn't it the same for everything else in the world?I could say "NO! The point is, that without strict criteria to identify the cause of *insert whatever you want here*, there is no certain way to tell!" Who are you to tell me that the "strict criteria" has been met? Do you have the monopoly on what a "strict criteria" is?I mean let's take the example of the Higgs Boson finding that I like so much :1) It could be the Higgs boson that you and the experts think it is. 2) It could be a different boson altogether -- maybe one that nobody knows about yet. 3) It could be a powerful alien from a different planet who wants to mess with us.4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3. (because we will then have a scientific explanation!?)

There is proofs, books, volumes written about miracles and how to detect them. It is not something secret.

It cannot be concluded that going to Lourdes has anything to do with being healed, it is concluded that it is God who healed the person therefore we witnessed a miracle. God does miracle everyday everywhere in the world, we are lucky to "catch" some of them in Lourdes.

Or from nogodsforme that is constantly dodging my questions.You know what a miracle expert is. I know what a miracle expert is. If someone ask me what is the sun am I obliged to answer in detail what the sun is or it will get judged inappropriate, unacceptable?For real if it was that important for you guys to know what a Miracle expert is, I'm sure you would not ask me.Hypocrites.

Yes. Only Catholic Christian God can perform miracles recognized by the Catholic Church. These are the miracles we are talking about that are proof of existence of God outside your body. Welcome to the discussion._________

For one thing, if you are trying to demonstrate that there is a god that exists outside of the human brain, you have just limited yourself tremendously by only considering one god. Maybe there are others.

You should read Dr. Jacalyn Duffin's book. It will help you learn about the miracle process and if there are "accurate within a margin of error" and have "statistical tests and confidence intervals and normal curves and sh!t like that."

Computers are my field of expertise.I have met people who works with identifying miracles. And have some experience with things that seemed miraculous and that in reality are not. Also, I know about miracles (acts of God) since I lived one. (a spiritual miracle)

I am waiting for Lukvance to show1. That it is his god that does the miracles and not some other god, elf or fairy. 2. The cause of the miracles is not "a natural process of which we have no present knowledge."

1. There are experts on that subject that showed that.2. The cause of the miracles is God. Since nature is created by God. Of course it is a "natural process" I mean what is an "unnatural process" for you? maybe i don't understand what you mean by "natural process". Anyway, as I stated before, there are miracles that are at least 2000 years old and we still don't have any proof that it wasn't God's action in the world, proof of his existence outside our body.

Like in any any field of expertise there is not one university or courses that will make you an expert. Only the number of peers recognizing you as a source of information on that field makes you an expert.

According to Wikipedia : An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.

I hope this will help you understand me better when I talk about "miracle experts"

Do you have any evidence that this experience where God interacted with you actually happened outside your mind? This is a completely serious question.

Yes. I have the same evidence that you have when you speak to someone on the phone instead of simply thinking about speaking to someone on the phone.

I know about miracles about as much as you do about higgs boson or gravity or how can your car works. Of course, I don't exactly know what you know, my point is we all speak about things we don't really know.What I mean is that I know enough to make the following statements : 1. "Miracles are acts of God, proof of his existence outside our body"2. "There is a scientific method similar to the one presented by Graybeard about gravity that you could apply if you want to find a miracle"

Don't worry, I know a lot about science, maybe as much as you do. I know also about philosophy and sometime I say things as if I was talking to someone with my experience in comparing two different things keeping only the similar points in common.For me Higgs Boson is hearsay, most of science is hearsay because I don't have the capacity at the moment to test every theory that is presented to me.

So as I understand you are basing your claims without looking at the source. You are accusing the researchers without even asking one of them how they do their research.I did ask one of them I remember saying that. He confirmed that all the miracle case follow a strict scientific method."control groups, random sampling, statistical tests for validity, confidence intervals" are all part of the investigation."Suppose they did investigate miracles performed by other gods, and found that other gods had a higher rate of miracle healings than the Catholic god? " You really want it to be about ratings eh? IT IS NOT! Miracle are just events that we had the chance to pick up. You don't have to go to Lourdes to live a miracle they happen everywhere in the world today. It's in Lourdes that you have the necessary instruments to measure the event and judge if it is a miracle or not a miracle. There are other instruments in Vatican or some other places in the world.

I will wait for you to educate yourself on the subject of miracle to the point that you can claim "There are no control groups" and "there is no specific criteria" from somewhere else than out of you a**

You are thinking too superficially. My analogy was on a higher level of thought than you understand it. You will only know that you talked to someone on the phone when you meet that person in flesh. until then all the "proof" that you can give can be faked. (you talked to a beep not actually to someone on the other side) The same goes for my experience with God. I know he touched me but I will only be 100% sure when I will meet him.________

I did construct one that passed muster. You wanted to quit before I had time to explain it in simpler terms to you.________

Your sentences are not true. I know about both, miracles and Higgs Boson. That is why I compared them to one another.

I understand that you people are having trouble finding counter arguments to the proof I presented but it is not a reason to insult me like that. That is the reaction of someone who is scared that people find out he is wrong, so he yells and try to diminish the opponent, raise his voice and fists just to impress the others so that maybe they will not see how much fear he has to be proven wrong.

Sorry, they are not experts. They use the same irrational arguments that you do (mainly the argument from ignorance fallacy) and they have nothing more. If you disagree then please provide the actual evidence and argument here, instead of trying to pawn off your job onto someone else (or some other alleged "expert"). We can do that in science (provide the studies and argument). Do you have the guts to try it here?

First of, they are experts. Since you are not working in the field you cannot "remove" their title of expert.

What you have is a group of people who basically state that because science does not have a current explanation of how a person got better, that therefore it must have been a "God" that did it. But that is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy! I don't care how many times you try to use it. It is logically fallacious...every-single-time.

What reason do I have to believe miracles are not fiction or mistaken beliefs?

Many. One of them is that you can see, touch and listen to some people that has lived a miracle. You also have access to all the work that has been done around each miracle through books and people that have worked on the case. Given enough time and money, you will be able to find a miracle yourself. Your non belief in miracle do not undo them. People that were sick are still cured even if you don't believe in miracle. Even if every one on earth did not "believe" in miracle, the person would still have been cured by God, there would still be a miracle.

I don’t deny that the people have been healed, that much has been scientifically proven. From your sources and others that I have provided, the methods used to determine the involvement of “God” involve merely determining that no known natural cause was a result of the healing. This is the text book “God of the Gaps” argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Just because we don’t know the cause of the healing is not proof that the Catholic Church “God” is responsible. No methods are provided in making that determination, which has been explained to you many times.Why should I believe a logical fallacy? Logical fallacies lead to errors and mistakes which can lead to believing falsehoods are true.

You keep repeating that it is a logical fallacy without telling us what would make it not a fallacy. I mean, if God were to exist and to act upon this world, how differently would you proceed to detect his actions?Let me answer for you, you will do exactly what is being done right now.Look for reasons that it is not God. Once all options has been eliminated, look for reasons why it is God, then conclude.

You not being hit or your house not burning are not miracles. People praying and having their prayers answered are not miracle if it wasn't submitted to then accepted by the Vatican.I hope this clarify things for you.Miracles in general are "event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"

I know of people who prayed for their health and where cured but not the way they initially wanted.All miracles are not submitted to the Vatican. That do not make them less miraculous. It's just that we are not sure if it's God's touch or some other reason.__________

The miracle is not an explanation of the inexplicable. It's the confirmation of a theory. In the sense that finding a miracle is like finding the Higgs Boson. It is not an explanation of the inexplicable.One might object that scientists claim that they cannot explain how that person got cured for example.In parallel, there are scientist who do not believe in the Higgs Boson Theory. They will say "we cannot explain how this happen" and that will be their only official answer. It would be to the scientific team that was exploring the Higgs Boson theory to conclude that indeed it is the Higgs Boson. (and those who believe in the theory to concur)

The expert I met assured me that the scientific method was strictly respected. He even hinted that the current scientific process is a consequence of the "tests" run by the church about miracles and saints. We wouldn't have scientific evidence without all these rules that the church imposed on scientific people. I'm not sure about the last part but I believed him about the first part.So, please ask those question to someone more versed in it than me. You should also pick one particular miracle as some miracles are not about people being healed.I found this article about the miracle of Lanciano : http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html It might be a start. Even if I feel it's too "old". It support the fact that even after so much time we did not find any other reason than God's touch for this event.The best I could recommend you is read the book from the doctor : http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Miracles-Doctors-Saints-Healing/dp/019533650X/ref=la_B001HMRLP2_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404933018&sr=1-1She will have answers to your questions.

Yet you have provided no basis for such conclusions except one big argument from ignorance. Got anything better?

I have lots. Right now, you are saying "NO! Because... NO! and i won't support my claims because the burden of proof is on you, not me" So... whenever you are ready to discuss. And saying that something is a fallacy does not make it so. You have to prove it but as you say " the burden of proof is on you - not me. So stop trying to turn the tables b/c that is called the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof." So we are stuck in the discussion since you don't seem to be able to support your counter argument(s).

If you do not have "the answers" for which you have claimed that these alleged experts have, then how can you merely assert that they have the answers??

Because I've met with one and he confirmed that. Contrary to you who just say things without supporting them , I have support for my claims._________

About the expert. I explained to you that I was not the one deeming them expert it was their peers. People opinion that you don't seem to respect at all. People who focus their lives in the understanding of miracles. Do you really think you know more than they do!? Do you have that much ego? Did you ask your questions to one before drawing conclusion on their work? (conclusion like using them "it's meaningless" or they can't "independently verify that said experts actually have expertise in a given field")

Sure you might be nice and listen to what they have to say, but if all they do is repeat the same incorrect methods over and over which you identify as illogical, why would you believe them? If you believe them, then why not believe everyone about anything?

That makes perfect sense. I guess the difference between you and me is that if someone comes to me with a proof and I don't know how to disprove it or how "it" should happen so I could accept it, then I will accept it until proven otherwise. In your case, even if proof is given to you, you reject it on the base that they do not conform to your needs, not because they are not valid, just because they are going against your beliefs. In short : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God. I know what would make me accept every facts that I don't believe in.

Look for reason why it is “God”. Okay, THAT is where I’d like to see some information. What are the reasons why it is “God”? Where is that data showing that?

You should ask an expert about that to have the more correct info. The where, for each miracle, is reported in the Vatican archives.If it can help you, the way I recognize God in my everyday life is the following "there are no bad after effect" meaning the consequence of God acting in my life cannot be wrong or bad or evil or anything negative.It's exactly what people usually feel when they follow their conscience. Not following it usually have negative effects.

Because God is good. And usually people like good and dislike evil. Did I really have to teach you that?

Quote

Why isn't the tiny engine problem that randomly caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers on board also considered a miracle? That is also very rare and unlikely, isn't it? A miracle from god!

To answer the question "Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?"Yes he does.The proof? Miracles are proof or the existence of God outside our body/brains.Do they follow any scientific process? Yes they do.Are the experiment reproducible? Yes.

You can read about it on reply #421#427#359-360Since reply #203 you already have answer and proof.Up to now all I've read are personal opinions not supported by any documents or experts from the field. I get it you want to make sure that there are no flaws in the method. But I remind you that you are not the only one trying to refute the existence of God and that those before you met the same wall that you encounter now. Your lack of knowledge on the subject.Ask a priest, a professional, an expert about miracles. Read their books. The process is as scientific as it can be and that there are no stone left unturned before declaring an event as a miracle. I did the research.I remember someone asking me why I use "events", sometime I use event because miracles are not only about people healing there are more than one way that God reveal his presence to us.

To be continued in Part 4

« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 12:12:15 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

If more bad rare events happen than good rare events, what can we conclude about the goodness of god?

Nothing. God is not related to bad events. I don't believe that worldwide there are more bad events than good events. For example look at you and your 10 closest friends. What is the proportion of good events versus bad events do you live?

Quote

Like if you live in Northern Nigeria or the Gaza Strip, there is not much good coming your way. Is god's goodness limited to a select few in certain places?

Would you want to talk about computer technology with someone who was terribly lacking in knowledge you considered necessary for the discussion?

Yes. I love that . If I had a conversation with someone who supported the fact that Internet Explorer was the best browser of all time but is a professional singer, that would be interesting. I wouldn't call him ignorant (even if he might be) I would only point out the flaw(s) in his logic like I did in my one on one discussion about the existence of God and let the people decide.

The proof? Miracles are proof or the existence of God outside our body/brains.

No, they are not, because nobody has ever actually demonstrated that something is a miracle, let alone that it's caused by some supernatural entity.

You see? That is a perfect example of a counter argument that is not supported. You should explain how would someone should "demonstrate that something is a miracle" then how it doesn't actually go that way and who that someone else (preferably an expert) is supporting your claim.

They follow it to a limited extent, by investigating to find if there is some known scientific cause for them. It's what they do after determining that there is no known cause that is not scientific.

What else would you add? Again "what they do after is not scientific" is a claim that should be supported. And for that you should be able to tell us "what they do after" and support your claim with quotes from experts that knows "what they do after" then show us why it is not scientific. Finally present us how it should be done to be scientific.________

Your counter argument here is "the final verdict is handed down by priests and theologians". When I presented the scientific method I indeed presented these expert as a source for the final verdict. I understand how it can be misunderstood. But it doesn't have to be them. You can declare something to be a miracle by following the same rules they do and then present your findings to experts. They will surely acknowledge your work and you will have found a miracle recognize by the Church.You can also find a miracle not recognize by the church but you wouldn't be 100% sure that it is God's doing. Like if you find proof of a Higgs Boson in your backyard, you wouldn't be 100% sure it is one as long as you don't submit your findings to experts.________

It is not because someone think that it is from another God that makes miracles coming from another God. It's not because you think that it's simply brains doing that it does best that it is not God's doing. You have to support your claims, preferably with people recognize by their peers as knowledgeable when it comes to miracles.

Any pictures? Any "God" rocks? Any reflective mirrors on the surface of "God" that we can use to bounce lasers off of?

Yes we call them miracles. You can take look up pictures of people that has been touch by God, you can even touch them. You can look at the Miracle of LancianoWiki and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes. It is God's flesh and blood. ________

You can answer "I don't know" and then I will have prove that "you don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God"________

I know the basic steps of the scientific method. What could be the test procedures? Aren't them already in place?I keep coming back to my first question that you cleverly avoided.________

So what if I was taught something different and what I was taught is what I've experienced so far?I've been taught that there is no god or gods and what I've been taught fits exactly with the reality I've experienced so far. If your logic is rational then we are both right.

Yes, indeed.

I've learned by my experiences that God is good and do not put me to the test.________

I meant : Did you ever follow your conscience and then something bad happens BECAUSE of it? (not something outside your control) Did your conscience ever LIED to you? If so could we have an example? If not, can I conclude it's impossible that such a thing happen?________

For me God = Conscience. To put me to a test, God must lie to me. For example : I ask him, should I pull the trigger? Then he answers "yes" to test me. He then lied to me since he knows I shouldn't pull the trigger.________

I have means of detecting God and learning about his nature. Catechism, and miracles.

It is up to you to show that what your priests do is scientific. I have already conceded that the process is scientific up to a point - specifically, where the scientists involved conclude that they have no explanation for why those people healed. It is up to you to show that the process your priests go through is also scientific, which you have consistently and repeatedly failed to do. To do this even by your own rules, you must show that your priests are experts in science (which, notably, you have never actually done). If they are not experts in science, they cannot take over from actual experts in science who concluded that they couldn't explain something.

It's up to ME to support YOUR claim? wow. That's a new low. Don't claim things you know nothing about!

Using hurtful words and diminishing the intellect of the one countered or insulting him diminish the power of your argument. It's like saying that the argument (or counter argument) alone is not strong enough. it must be supported by some kind of bashing or it will be easily dismissed.

As I’ve said, the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown. You are claiming if we don’t know something, that is evidence for “God”. Yes, yes, I know it has to be a really amazing good thing to happen. It doesn’t matter, scientists say, we don’t know the cause, the Vatican then declares miracle. Unknown = Miracle.

I’ve already explained the problems with this logic. See: Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. See any ancient culture for that matter.

No need to explain it again, it is not the logic I use. It is only the logic you want people to believe I use. But it is not. That's why I don't want you to judge me, let your counter argument speak for itself. Up until now, the way I understand your counter argument is the following phrase : "the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown" and that is not true. The cause is known. The cause is God as predicted by the theory.

If you’re asking me if I know how to detect “God”, then no, I do not know how to detect “God”, if I did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and I would be working on a scientific paper showing everyone how to detect “God”.

Then allow yourself to learn how to detect God. People already wrote the paper for you.

If someone (anyone) were to inform the world how to detect “God” and then ascertain “God’s” behavior and verify that “God” was the cause of certain events for which the cause was unknown (aka miracles), then I would be able to accept the fact that a miracle is an act from “God”. How is that not answering your question?

Because my question is in two parts. The second part being "How is that different to what is already in place?" Someone already informed the world how to detect God and ascertain his behavior and verify that he is the cause of the event and this is the process used to determine if an event is a miracle._________

The steps that the Catholic church takes are also the same than the scientific method. I think you voluntary "skipped" some of them. It looks like the 3 steps that the Catholic Church use are only step 1 of the scientific method.

Here is how Miracles fit in the Scientific method :1. Propose a means to detect “God” : You can find how to detect a miracle. (the 3 steps you talked about are a good start then there are others)2. Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God” : We know what a miracle might look like and how it should behave. (for example, the cure must be permanent)3. Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God” : We do compare the event to what has been predicted.4. Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes. 5. Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” is the cause of any events with known causes.

You didn't have the following information : You and anyone are able to verify that God is involved in these miracles. They just have to study the subject (become theologians)As you can see there are no difference between what you expect and what is already in place.

The claim is reviewed by non Catholic parties. Everyone on earth have the capacity to review the claim. _________

1) Do we use control groups for comparison? Yes we do. We compare the sick person to another person with the same sickness.2) Are the sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)? There is only one who is cured indeed. What were you expecting? Many people cured? If I misunderstand, there are many people with the same disease than the cured person so no the sample size is huge.

I guess you can find the answer to the other questions by asking an expert in miracles. I strongly suggest that you do that before claiming things based on your ignorance on the subject like you have been doing until now.BTW one of the source I cited is a book, I'm pretty sure you did not read it. The doctor answers your question pretty fast into the book.So "According to what Lukvance himself has posted and the links he has provided" and "the Catholic Church is deficient in at least these ways" are not yet compatible. I posted that you should talk to an expert.

Lukvance, have you ever taken a basic statistics or research methods class? You do not seem to have the most rudimentary idea of what I am talking about in terms of how a study should be designed to reduce bias, etc. You are describing the kinds of things that you learn not to do in the first week of research methods. Like comparing one person with a disease to one other person with a disease, or assuming that everyone with a disease is your sample.

A control group is a randomly selected group of people who will not have the treatment, in this case, prayer or other religious activity, so you can compare the baseline rate of improvement (people who would have gotten well anyway no matter what) to the rate of improvement from the treatment. Astreja, can you help? I am at a loss.

That's ok. I know that you are, and you will be until you follow the instruction I gave you.Now what you are talking about is a clinical research on the use of miracle as a cure for disease.IT IS NOT A SOLUTION. It has never been a solution to the disease, it will never be.Miracles are acts from God. Not a "medicinal product"or a treatment.jaimehlers and you surely have misunderstood that part since you are trying to compare miracle and medicinal products/treatment studies." If doctors were running a clinical trial where they were testing a new medicine""A control group is a randomly selected group of people who will not have the treatment, in this case, prayer or other religious activity,"With that in mind, review the 2 first answer I gave you and maybe follow my suggestions before claiming things with you lack of knowledge.

Ps : jaimehlers I talked to an expert and if only by that fact I know more than you will ever know until you talk to or read from an expert.

Okay, let’s review the evidence I have and what you seem to be implying you have regarding miracles.SevenPatch has the following evidence:A. Scientific evidence and conclusions that no known cause can explain the event that occurred.

Lukvance seems to be implying he has the following evidence:A. Scientific evidence and conclusions that no known cause can explain the event that occurred.B. Evidence that “God” is the cause of the event that occurred.

I don’t have evidence “B”, give me evidence “B”, show me where evidence “B” is. My conclusions so far are based on not having “B”. No “B” is the counter argument. In order for you to refute the counter argument, all you have to do is provide “B”. DO NOT tell me that miracles are “B”, or this discussion will end and you will have proved that my points are valid.

B is not miracles. Miracles are the proof of the existence of God. The evidence that God is the cause of the miracle comes from your knowledge of God and what he can do and what he would do if he was to prove his existence using a miracle. From that knowledge you can conclude that it is indeed God who caused the event, we then call the event miracle._________

Quit stonewalling and answer the questions._________

Sorry, with your explanation on evidence previously in this post, I realize that I should have written "the evidence is in the miracles" I understand that little word can make a whole lot of difference. Good thing you took time to explain further the bit about evidences.

Miracles are not evidence that it is God who made them. Miracles are evidence of the existence of God outside your body.

My response would be to provide you with background information, links to the scientific research, results and data which (so far) verify the predictions made regarding the Higgs boson particle.

I can provide you links to theology courses and books and website if you want. You will then have the necessary background information to know it was indeed an act from God. See? Your reaction is not that different than mine.

I have a rock in my back yard that was put there by aliens from another planet. What is that you say? You question the legitimacy of my story? Well of course it is true, it has yet to be proven wrong. GO AHEAD, I DARE YOU to prove that aliens from another planet didn’t put the rock in my back yard.

Give me enough time and I (or some rock expert or some alien expert) will prove you that the rock that you have was NOT put there by aliens from another planet.________

Why do you keep asking me for specific means of how to detect something I don’t know to exist? Do I ask you what specific means you would use to detect the existence of leprechauns or Santa Clause? You don’t have any reason to believe leprechauns or Santa Clause exist, so why would you know how to detect them?

Explain to me how they are detected and hwy they are detected that way. I will then have a specific mean that I would use to detect the existence of leprechauns or Santa Clause BEFORE telling you that your means are not working.

[...] Sounds like you want me to believe without evidence, like you do. No thanks, I’ll wait until I get the evidence. Anytime you’d like to share any such evidence what-so-ever, be my guest.

Oh it wasn't so hard. You don't have to twist you mind that much. "allow yourself to learn how to detect God" simply means take some course in theology. Do you want me to redirect you to the University closest to you?

No, your understanding of the 5 steps is lacking. How about you describe in your own words what impact the discovery of the Higgs boson particle means to science? Then I’ll go into detail regarding the 5 steps.

Beside the stonewalling for step 4 and 5 I believe that your study in theology will answer your counter arguments for the other steps._______

OMG! I had already told you about theologians. Look at that! I am smarter than I think I am haha. Since your post was so long I took time to answer each part when in fact the answer was already been given. Just maybe misunderstood.What you might not have understood about theology is that it is where you learn how to determine that God is the cause. It is not a secret information, you can read books about theology and follow the courses that I've linked you._______

The best would be that you review it yourself. That way you will be sure that the reviewing has been done correctly. If you want to read about the others reviewing, I think you will have to read books or go to the Vatican archives. Maybe with luck you can find a theological review online for the miracle you want to investigate. Something along the lines of that book.

Once he had proof he claimed that he is right. And he is until proven otherwise. Like those scientists claiming that The Earth Is the Center of the Universe. They were right until proven otherwise.My point is the following : Finding a miracle proves the existence of God outside our Body until proven otherwise.

LukvanceFrom the perspective of the catholic church, do miracles ever happen to non-catholics?

Yes. But they are not miracle like the ones we are talking about in this thread. (I use miracle as a shortcut to "Miracle recognize by the Vatican") I don't think The Vatican recognize a miracle that happen to non-catholics. I believe that in these instances it is not God's touch.

Like those scientists claiming that The Earth Is the Center of the Universe. They were right until proven otherwise.

They were right because they didn't know they were wrong? They were right because nobody knew any better, which confirmed their claims?

How is somebody right merely because nobody knows they are wrong? Back when there was no germ theory, was it right to eat with your bare hands after using them to clean out crap out of the animal pens without washing with soap?

With all the ignorance we have left, I could start being right about a lot of things if I thought I could get away with it.

I think you know the answers to your questions. So I will consider this not as a counter argument. Just spam.

So I guess that's what I'm asking. Why do you equate ignorance with being right? I have never encountered this before.

I do not equate ignorance with being right. I say that people are right until proven wrong. I also say that some people will never be proven wrong. You are the one interpreting it the other way around.

I believe that you don't want to acknowledge theology as the science of God. But it is like not wanting to acknowledge physics class as the science of particle physics. To know about God academically you have to follow theology classes. You are allowed to learn about god "by yourself" like you are allowed to learn about particle physics "by yourself"."These classes do not demonstrate the miraculous each semester" Is as true as the particle physics classes do not demonstrate the existence of the Higgs Boson each semester. I agree with you!These courses are just a necessary piece for the demonstration in one hand of the existence of the Higgs Boson and the other hand the existence of God.I say : DEMONSTRATION OF the existence of God: -What is a miracle?-A miracle is God interacting with this world.-How do you know God exists outside your brain? -Because there are miracles and I am not causing them with my brain.-So...God exists because God interact with this world.

God comes as a conclusion of the event, not the premise. At the beginning you don't have God, you just have an event then you look for what could have caused the event. If the event happen in a controlled environment (as Lourdes for example) you could conclude that the event was caused by God.

My point is the following : Finding a miracle proves the existence of God outside our Body until proven otherwise.

It is not possible to be sane and believe that at the same time.[...]Your god does not exist, and, no, that is not opinion, it is the only reliable conclusion and that must remain the case until you show otherwise.

I see a lot of unsupported claims. I don't remember using the God of the gaps argument. You are the one presenting it as if I was using it.We know how God can interact with the world we measured his interactions and it acted like we predicted. _________

You need God to guide you with your everyday life decision. You need God as an example in your life, as a goal, as a purpose to your existence. You need God as an infinite source. You need God for things I can't even start to comprehend.We need God for many many reasons.

To be continued in Part 5

« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 12:11:53 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

now you are accusing me of stonewalling while not answering my requests, so who is the one stonewalling here?

You were. But that's ok. I don't need the information anymore. You gave me enough afterwards so I was able to understand your viewpoint. I answered your question. It was along the lines "how can I know it is God who caused the event?" and the answer is along the line "by studying God"._______

Miracles happen in a certain kind of way and environment. These can help determine that it was God's touch therefore the proof is in the miracles. The proof is in the event would be more politically correct._______

If you’re going to believe something, don’t you want it to be clear as a sunny cloudless day that it is true?

Yes I do. And it is.

There are studies that have been made before proving it's existence. Weren't the people studies made on "something that does not exist" at the time?We call the field who studied the Higgs Boson. Physics.We call the field who studied God. Theology.Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what a Higgs Boson is and how it should behave, we found it at the LHC.Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what God is and how he should behave, we found him at Lourdes.

Please, please, refrain yourself from insulting me about the Higgs Boson. I know it's tempting as the comparison is daring but let your counter arguments speak for themselves instead of supporting them with hidden or not hidden insults.

Ps : "source as to what there method is for determining that “God” is the cause" = Theology.

It is really hard to falsify more than 2000 years of knowledge.You can go to the Catholic Church and say, let's look at your miracles and see what happens when we assume there is no god involved. You have all the information available. Just do it. I'm pretty sure you'll get the same result that we have. It was indeed an act from God.

Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist. Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist.________

The corrected argument is "Events like those found in Lourdes are the evidence of the existence of God interacting with the world".

What doctors? How many? Where? Who exactly were these doctors who who had consulted on the case and pronounced it incurable or fatal?

It depends on what miracle you are looking at. The answer is "enough" there was enough doctors. If you want to add one, go ahead and add one of your own. The files are not locked in a vault. They are available to every scpecialist who want to consult them. If you had read the book I suggested you to read, you would have known such things. You keep making assertions about miracle without enough knowledge. This does not help the discussion at all. All it does is confuses other readers, presenting them false/unbased ideas as real. I think there is a word for that...

I've met with graduated students from Theology. They would strongly disagree with you. They study what might exist through very real things like people, behaviors, lives, rituals, history...etc. Of course some of the theory is based on books written by other people. These books ideas are based on real things. The possibility of these things being wrong is looked at with scrutiny by thousands of students and scholars worldwide. Papers are published. (look at some of them here)Peer reviewing is a common practice among them.

In theology, God is theorized based on different models. The current models might be incomplete and might have some error to them. That error is explained in various ways (like culture or localisation or crazy people). Then, based on the models, God is defined. That definition makes predictions. Then they go look for God.They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

Research made in theology allows you to predict the way God will act if he does in this world. It is not subjective, a majority of theologian must approve the fact that the event is caused by God before he is claimed real.The claim must be reviewed by it's peers.

Miracles are a really rare thing to find and is one of the most solid form of proof (of the existence of God) that you will find. Some theologians pass their lives making sure that one particular miracle was really one. If it wasn't true, I believe that they would've exposed the flaw and it would have made the news all over the world.

Yes it does, in both case. Studying Harry Potter allow us to be certain that Harry Potter caused magic and not someone/something else. (if he had that kind of power)Studying God allow us to be certain that God caused the event and not someone/something else.

This "negative claims without proof" is used as a counter argument to the proof I am presenting. If you follow a little bit the discussion you might understand that the claim has been made, proof has been presented and we are in the process of counter arguing the proof actually presented. You claiming "You have a repeatedly made claims that your god is real without providing one iota of proof." Is a big big Lie or some kind of personal attack. Anyway, it doesn't help the discussion.

Theology is as vast as Science and like science it is based on real things. On reality. Saying that science can predict everything is a lie. The Double-slit experimentWiki and quantum physics in general are proof that you should retract such claims.You can claim that Science cannot actually predict "things", (like the position of an electron).________

Theology can predict how a miracle will happen. I agree that it cannot predict when it will happen or how to "force" it to happen...yet. It's a field that is always looking for new solutions, always expanding. Maybe one day we will be able. Meanwhile, based on the information revealed by the event, the existence of God has been proved.________

In conclusion, the majority rules in science too. (contrary of what you are supporting)________

I've met with theologians and they are fierce. Especially the atheists ones that don't want a proof of the existence of God to exist. They review each others like crazy, making sure that not one mistake has been made. Not one stone has been left unturned.________

I've met with theologians and they assure me that each paper is reviewed exactly the same way a paper on particle physics is reviewed. By looking at mistakes that the author of the paper could have made. This paper is still available to YOUR review, and *IF* you find a mistake in it I'm sure the author will revise it.________

Ps : I already see pointing at the horizon the counter argument that theology papers are based on belief. Let me nullify it already by pointing out that papers can be written by atheists (people that are as close to reality as you are, who's "beliefs" are based on reality)

I used the HB example because it is something "immaterial" that can only be detected by it's interaction with something else. ________

Please prove me your existence without using the same fallacy. I cannot see you, I cannot touch you, I cannot smell you, basically you are immaterial. Show me that you exist without using what you call a fallacy. You can't. That's because proving your existence would only be possible by proving the interaction that you have with the world is only made by you and you only. And per your definition that would presuppose your existence making it a fallacy. So, do you exist?

When you talk about science you seem to forget the science explaining the sub-atomic particles. It is not exact science, but it is science nevertheless.In theology you have the same thing. Theology can predict how a miracle will happen. I agree that it cannot predict when it will happen or how to "force" it to happen...yet. It's a field that is always looking for new solutions, always expanding. Maybe one day we will be able. Meanwhile, based on the information revealed by the event, the existence of God has been proved.

I am underlining the fact that it is your counter argument : "If someone from a non-christian religion (Hindu, for instance) proved that a miracle happened and claimed that Vishnu did it" then miracle from God are not proof of his existence.

Researchers are not claiming miracles's supernatural and I am not claiming that the miracle are supernatural either. You are the one trying to put that supernatural element in the conversation when it has yet to be demonstrated. When I compare Miracle and HB I am comparing 2 natural events. If you want one of the 2 to be supernatural you will have to demonstrate it.________

I'm sorry did you miss the part where I present you with a premise that does not use miracle? You had to invent words that are not there to recreate a fallacy that is not really there."Events, like those found in Lourdes, are the evidence of the existence of God interacting with the world"You keep asserting that "We can't explain this so it must have been God" is a fallacy. When I already agreed with you on that.You now know that it is God not because "We can't explain this" but because it fits the theory. If you don't, that's what I m trying to tell you.There is a theory of God, what he might do if he interacted with the world.A event happen and we measure that event with the tools available to confirm or infirm the theory.If the theory is confirmed by the measurements made, a paper is produced.That paper is reviewed by independent peers and if no flaws have been revealed then the event prove the theory to be correct.

did you miss the part where I present you with a premise that does not use miracle? You had to invent words that are not there to recreate a fallacy that is not really there."Events, like those found in Lourdes, are the evidence of the existence of God interacting with the world"

I know that theologians today will make predictions based on facts. Verifiable facts. So it might be different than lightning. Like the scientists when they put down the theory of the existence of the HB when we didn't know if it existed. Theologians don't need to base their predictions on the existence of God.

Basically, you cannot say that ALL scientists MUST approve the fact that the event is caused by the Higgs Boson before it is claimed real. In conclusion, the majority rules in science too. (contrary of what you are supporting)

Why do you keep using strawman arguments? I never said this to begin with.Nothing you said actually shows this, therefore there is no reason to conclude that my argument is incorrect.

I know you never said that to begin with, I wrote that to support the following phrase. The majority rules in science too because you cannot say that ALL scientists MUST approve the fact that the event is caused by the Higgs Boson before it is claimed real. You must say that THE MAJORITY approve...etc__________

I shared a link earlier about the papers produced by theologians and their reviews.

Both of whom, from our perspective, specialize in something that doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, their expertise is for nought.

1. You need to understand that if you apply it to miracle, you have to apply it the same way to HB. So, from our perspective people who were specializing in the Higgs Boson particle before its discovery, specialized in something that didn't exist? Was their expertise for nought?2. Again you are making the assertion that God does not exist without proving it. I understand that It can be hard/impossible to prove that something does not exist and this should be one of the reason why you shouldn't use the "non-existence" of something as an argument.

Anyway, the problem with "theological predictions" is that they don't actually predict anything useful. For example, take the sample prediction "God uses miracles to heal supplicants at Lourdes". Yet this doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful, such as who will be healed, a method by which they can gain healing, or anything else. It doesn't even give the odds that a person will be healed at Lourdes (probably because the odds are lower than the chances of winning the jackpot in a Powerball lottery drawing). Theological predictions are like astrological predictions, so general that they can 'predict' anything, which ultimately means that they don't actually predict anything; they simply count the hits and ignore the misses.

1. I'll ask you to read reply #809 or #667. …. your counter argument doesn't stand.2. The sample you took is not the kind of prediction made by theologians. Their kind of prediction is more along the line "if the event happening correspond to known criteria then it is God who caused the event" Just like scientist with the Higgs Boson "if the event happening correspond to known criteria then it is the HB who caused the event"________

Atheists can argue that no god is causing the event and produce a paper to prove their point. This paper will then be reviewed by it's peers and if he made a mistake that mistake will be revealed. If he did not make any mistake, the event won't be considered as a miracle.I compare Atheists with people who don't believe that we found the Higgs Boson. They are few but they are here. If they have sufficient knowledge, they can produce a paper proving that it is not the Higgs Boson that had been found. This paper will then be reviewed by it's peers and if he made a mistake that mistake will be revealed. If he did not make any mistake, the event won't be considered as proof of the existence of the HB.________

"My own descriptions" include a book, at least one theologian, a myriad of paper created by theologians, a miracle expert and more. Don't tell me you read them all. I'm pretty sure that if you did, you wouldn't be able to affirm such things because you would've learn that they are lies/wrong.

Of course I didn't read them all. Your descriptions are what you've put in this thread, not the sources you used, and I assure you, I've read everything you've written in this thread. If you cannot accurately describe and summarize those things you've read, then you have no business presenting them as if you did. If you can, then other people should not need to go read your sources to make sure you got it right.

Then quote me each time you make such assumptions. If you make you claims based on what I summarized there should be somewhere I summarized something along the line of your claims. I doubt you will find such things since I believe they are lies. Nevertheless, maybe I shared the wrong idea, you quoting me to support your claim will allow me to correct it then.

For example, take the investigations at Lourdes. In order to even be considered as a possible miracle, a committee of scientists must agree that they have no explanation for a given cure. In effect, they are stating that they're ignorant of what the explanation might be. What your church then does is take that statement of ignorance and state that if science can't explain it, and if it fulfills certain theological conditions, then it's a miracle from God.

That's one way to look at it. It's a twisted way, it is one nevertheless.__________

If they examined other cures explainable by science, they'd find that God was involved simply by prayer and that he did not directly act upon this world.

I gave you links to books, courses in theology, theology papers reviews...etc all of those correspond in parallel to your pictures and hangout calls. With what you are able to read here in the course of this discussion, you should have enough proof of the existence of God. But if needed more, I pointed you in the direction you could find more.___________

According to me, God is not supernatural. That is why I can compare his impact on the world and the HBYou say that there is no theory of God. I say there is one.I gave you links to Theology courses where you can learn the theory of God. You say "Someone could have a natural remission that was unseen or undetected (for example) and your credulous religionists would come along and say, "Aha! It's a miracle!" since they had no way to determine it was a naturally occurring event (i.e. - no appeal to a deity needed)" Maybe if you find at least one case like this one you might make it more credible. Right now I don't think it's right, it needs support more than your imagination.

I understand your point. And you would be right if I wasn't talking to people who do not want to learn about miracles on their own and allow themselves to criticize it without knowing anything about it. Scientists are not being criticized by music composers or even scientists from other field.

I have to relate to their lack of knowledge and use something similar that they know and understand. That way they might understand better how miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body.I use the HB to underline how your counter arguments means nothing and are based on ignorance or my inability to convey ideas simply enough.

If I was to stay standing on it's own evidence of the existence of god I would simply say : Evidence No.1 : Miracles.It's the most accessible one I could find since it involve the direct interaction of God and this world.The others where a little bit less accessibleEvidence No.2 : History of the resurrection of Christ.Evidence No.3 : "Philosophical" proofs.Evidence No.4 : "Testimonies"

My counter argument is “Do you see that there might just be a connection between these "Inspectors of Miracles" all being deeply Catholic and all of them saying, "Yes, God, who is a Catholic, did it."?”

Do you see that the argument for "Miracle Inspectors" presupposes a benevolent Catholic God?

No. As I stated before, you might be the one defining "Miracle Inspectors" as such.________

Simply writing what your imagination produced do not explain anything. Insulting Catholics as ignorant do not explain anything, it shows how frustrated you are at not finding arguments that speak for themselves. It shows how you must support them using insults or ways to diminish the opposite party.________

"Miracles are the proof of the existence of God outside our bodies."I've said it and this point toward the existence of God.

Your counter argument here is that because people don’t believe in tooth fairies, then it is not true. Is, that all it takes for something to be true, for people to believe in something and put hours/days/years into analyzing something?

You are making fun of me. That proves again the feeble power of your arguments. You really need to undermine the opposite party so that your argument could seem strong.Please, address my counter argument or retract/modify your claim.

Median,I am still calling claiming that theology "has not been demonstrated as being based on anything real or actual" a lie.I shared with you a link towards a basic course in theology. By following that course you will learn why it is a lie. The truth is : Theology is based on real and actual things.

Ps : I am not calling you a liar. I just underlined the falseness of the statement you made. Only one statement does not make you what you are, does it?

To be continued in Part 6

« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 12:22:42 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

If you want a "specific coherent definition" of what is God, you will have to study Theology or maybe talk to one.

Theology allows us human to learn about gods and formulate theories about each one of them. Before an event is claimed a miracle, before the event itself, there is a theory of what Christian God is and how he would behave. This theory is based on real and actual things. Before the event the theory is just that, a theory.After the event the theory is either confirmed or not.Since more than one event (60+ in Lourdes only) confirmed the theory, we can conclude with certitude that God is the one responsible for theses events.

To support my statements you have many links that I shared throughout this discussion.

Also we shouldn't do like Zola did : "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle." and become a "striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect."

Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

doing nothing to look at the proof presented to you is going against the spirit of a discussion. PLUS you make assumption contradicting mine without supporting them (not even one link) proving by that fact that your counter argument is only in your head, it is not real an is unsupported.

I tell you "the car is red look at it!"You tell me "NO! the car is not red and I won't look at it. You have to present me enough arguments right here and now by yourself proving me it's red without me looking at it. Don't tell me what I have to do! it's shifting the burden of proof!"Then you tell again "ANYWAY the car cannot possibly be red because cars are not red, saying that a car is red is a fallacy because there is car in the definition of a red car. Plus I know what I am saying because I've been in a car and it wasn't red so asking for the opinion of a car builder is useless anyway!"

Please, present a supported counter argument after having enough knowledge to formulate one. Not one that you invented for the circumstances.

You know what would be REALLY really nice? If there was actually a F$#cking way to detect "God" and determine if "God" actually interacted with reality instead of relying on looking for people who were healed without a known scientific reason.

You mean like prayers and things alike?Miracle happen everyday in a multitude of forms, the most visible ones are those I presented to you but you could go to the church next door and ask people how God "proved" them his existence. each one is another proof of the existence of God. But hey you don't want to do anything either eh?I understand that these testimonies are too far from science, that is why I use the miracles that are almost scientific proof of the existence of God.

Miracles do not occurs whenever someone survives a disease or condition without treatment, this is one event that should be looked at by experts before being claimed miracles. For example in Sister Marie's case : The event would not have counted as a miracle if the cause was psychogenic and if the immediate physiological cure had not been judged to be definitive, total, and permanent, as well as directly attributable to his intercession.

About the documentation and support of old miracles, they are available at the Vatican library and some rare libraries that I don't know of. (that's what the miracle expert told me)If we were to find another reason for the healing of the sick person than God, the event would have lost it's miracle status. That is not the case, even with our knowledge of science today, the event still stand as a miracle. I don't know exactly who but I know that scientists today work everyday to look at the proofs of old events and make sure that they still have God's doing as their only possible explanation.

That's not cool to call all these people who worked on the miracle case "gullible or biased" because you don't want to believe what is in front of you.I suggested that you talk to someone that had experience with miracle, did you do that?

Now, present a supported counter argument after having enough knowledge to formulate one. Not one that you invented for the circumstances.

Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Ideas are based on reality and vice versa. When you have an idea, let's say offering a rose to your girlfriend, you are thinking of something real (the rose, the money needed to buy it) and this idea will take shape/become real as a rose in the hand of your girlfriend.When you draw hypothesis like it was the case with the higgs boson you draw from ideas coming from reality that will maybe manifest (if you find the HB) or not (if you never find the HB) in reality later. I am sure that there was some theories that were destroyed by the finding of the HB._________

What allows us to predict life in other planets?This demonstrate that Theology does allow us to define a hypothetical god as much as Biology does allow us to define a hypothetical life in another planet.__________

If you have counter arguments against the proof presented then I am listening. If not, I really don't care anymore. Going of subject is a habit of yours. criticizing the critic made on someone else idea instead of confronting the main idea presented is a kind of stonewalling. I think it is against the rules of this forum.__________

Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

I think you misunderstood me. You say "I do not imagine roses or money into existence" I say "I can imagine a situation involving roses and make that situation real" The situation/idea is thought into existence , not the elements of the situation (roses or money) the elements exist whether you think of them or not._________

Example : Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre's miracle cure.In the case of Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre. God was hypothesized because different models (explaining her cure) contained inaccuracies. God corrected those inaccuracies. It was implied, defined and predicted by Theologians. It was like a jigsaw puzzle with a piece missing. You can tell the shape it needs to be by the pieces around it. You can tell the colors by the pieces around it.

The example is one that you can easily verify. I believe that the theory was drawn even before the first miracle and that each succeeding miracle just confirmed the theory.

For example, miracles. Theology does not find out what happened. It identifies a place where we do not know what happened. It is like a jigsaw puzzle, only instead of missing a single piece, we are only holding one piece and missing the whole rest of the puzzle. And you are speculating on what that puzzle may look like based on just one piece.

I realize that your example is the opposite of the one I just gave... so, how do we know who the two of us is saying the truth?Is it one piece and we imagine/theorize the puzzle or is it a puzzle and we imagine/theorize one piece? I believe that the answers lies in the education. We have to educate ourselves on the subject. I spoke to one of those person who educated herself during many years on the subject. That person agrees with me. I found papers online that also support this person ideas. __________

Now, how about you present us with educated /supported counter arguments?________

Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

As you can see the way I understand your statement make it a false counter argument. Could you maybe formulate some counter argument that would make more sense? If not, I'm sorry, your counter argument when applied to something else do not make sense. It is way too unsupported.

Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

…. your counter argument is missing some example to make it right in that particular case.___________

What indicate that it is God who did it is not only one thing. It's a multitude. I talked already about some of them (the immediate cure, the long lasting effect, the good directly caused by the miracle, the place of the miracle in the sick person life...etc) If you wish to know what are all the fact taken in you will have to learn them from theology courses. There are things that "cannot be from God" because they do not fit the theoretical description of God.The theory (of what God might be) is proved right or wrong by events like the ones in Lourdes. Let me underline the fact that the Theory can be proved WRONG. There might be a mistake in saying that God need to exist for Theology to exist. I agree that it is true for some field of Theology (the courses where God is accepted as existing) but some other fields that do not see God as existing. These are the fields I believe is used to create the Theory of God, based on real things.___________

If your example is true, so is the following :"If there are no Higgs Boson, then no scientific field will ever have any bearing on reality. It does not matter if there is a field of science for the study of a HB which does not actually exist; it would be as relevant in the real world as a field for studying Harry Potter, or for Star Trek, or whatever you might name."

Theology can imagine an event (God Interacting with the world) and this event happen (miracle)_________

God is as observable as any HB particle out there. You just need to use the correct tools and the correct method. Just like HB. ONly by using those specific tools in these specific manner that you will be able to observe "it".So, your counter argument "God is unobservable" is false. The truth is that "God is as observable as the HB"However I do agree with you that Theologians learn about things that are unobservable...yet (like angels or souls). Maybe the study of those things will allow us to write theory that will allows us to observe them.

Example : Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre's miracle cure.In the case of Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre. God was hypothesized because different models (explaining her cure) contained inaccuracies. God corrected those inaccuracies. It was implied, defined and predicted by Theologians. It was like a jigsaw puzzle with a piece missing. You can tell the shape it needs to be by the pieces around it. You can tell the colors by the pieces around it.

substituting your words into my example does not make it work. It is wrong on so many levels.1. nothing about it implied your particular god. It could have been a hindu god for all you know.2. nothing about it even necessarily implies a god. It could have been Sally, the healing ghost. 3. there is no math involved. you need math to have a model.and most importantly:4. you are not going out and observing god. They found Higgs bosons. Actually found them where they predicted they would find them. No such thing happened with your alleged miracle. There is no photo plate with god's footprints on it.

In case 1 and 2 we would still have demonstrated the existence of God. We would simply have given it another name.In case 3 you only need math to have a mathematical model. The mathematical model is not the only one existing.In cas 4. There is something way more relevant than a photo plate. There is a cured person. More than one. More than one place. That person was "found" exactly where they predicted they would find her._________

*I* and many other theologians have an explanation for the event. YOU are the one saying "they don't know what they are talking about" or "they are liars anyway" or "I don't trust them" _________

Since the claim of the event, even before biological tests were made, theologians worked to make sure if this event fitted the theory of God or not. In that way it was verified.No one directly saw God doing it since he is invisible. But many saw what he did.The trace god left was the cure. You can test the cure to make sure that is was god and nothing else that made it. (it was no human feat)

Now let me ask you the same questions about the HB, maybe you'll understand the absurdity of some of them :In what way was it verified? Did someone see the HB doing it? Is there some trace of the HB that can be tested for? what is that test? Is it like litmus paper? Or was it just a religious guy claiming the Boson of his preference did it?Care to answer them? Or are you ready to admit the absurdity of your questions?

You are just inventing things that contradict what I say and they are not supported by anything but your imagination.You have shared definition of words that do not fit what you are using. You keep asserting that those definition prove you right when they clearly don't apply to what you are saying ("The car is not red I've been into a car and it wasn't red"; "Anyway you cannot prove that the car is red by using the word "car" in you proof")When you say : "-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form"I remember since before reply #145 :

Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."

I guess that proves you wrong. I did defined God (as the greatest possible being)When you say :"-You haven't demonstrated that such a thing is independently real"I remember since before reply #910 :

Maybe I wasn't clear enough : Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

That is a demonstration of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains synonym for "independently real".When you say : "-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world" I have shown "it's" interaction. You are not willing to look at it. ("No, the car isn't red!")

What is not valid is saying that Theology do NOT show their thought experiment is both logically valid and relevant to the real world when they do._________

the fact that something is explainable indicate that it is not God's direct effect. It's humans. Same thing with the immediate cure. If the cure is not immediate, it indicate that it could be from some other secret procedure or let's say something from something the patient inhaled in the plane back to her place. It indicate that it is not certain anymore that the cure comes from God directly. If it does not last indefinitely it shows that the cure wasn't "perfect" hence cannot be from God. Each criteria proves/disprove that it must be from God like the theory predicted._________

Then replace "HB" by the new scientific discovery X. "If there are no X, then no scientific field will ever have any bearing on reality. It does not matter if there is a field of science for the study of a X which does not actually exist; it would be as relevant in the real world as a field for studying Harry Potter, or for Star Trek, or whatever you might name."

Ok here is the equivalent with the miracles as existence of God.Go to Lourdes (or set up a shop in front of your house) Look at someone being cured "miraculously" under your nose. When you do this, you will have demonstrated that people can get cured "miraculously". Now you can test, review and verify predictions regarding this demonstrated phenomenon.

Let’s say I make a prediction that if God is involved the cure must be immediate.We have already demonstrated that people can get cured "miraculously". Now we can test my prediction. Each of us can perform the test, and review our testing methods. After completing the tests we will find that my prediction has been falsified. From our tests, we found that people who do not get cure immediately cannot be held accountable as "proof of God". We can now make a better prediction cure must be immediate. Again, we test, and this time we verify our prediction. _________

But you can verify or falsify the existence of unicorns once you know enough about them. That is what we are doing here for God._________

You can review the testing methods and data collected on Unicorns. Theses (the data and the methods) wouldn't exist if the Unicorn did not. I mean scientists reviewed the data and the possible testing methods on the hypothetical HB before it was found didn't they?

I understand that. This point is valid. What is not valid is saying that Theology do NOT show their thought experiment is both logically valid and relevant to the real world when they do.

Based on what?

Based on the knowledge about theology. Knowledge that you seem to lack.

For me, it shows only your lack of knowledge about theology. I mean, aren't you talking about things you don't know? When you say "What they have shown is that it's relevant to the Catholic religion and to the people who believe in it, but that does not itself require your god to be a real entity rather than a subjective one that exists only in the minds of those who believe in him." I don't disagree with you. I am just saying they showed that AND MORE. And that it is the "more" part that I am "teaching" you the existence of._________

The interdimensional Guardians you speak about should have a theory at least as deep as the ones about God before even trying to prove their existence by matching them with events._________

I think I understand what circumstantial means. For me there cannot be more direct link to God than him interacting live with mater.It's like you found the murder weapon and the prints on it and you know who the prints are from but because the culprit is not visible in the court (or cannot be found by the police), the proofs are circumstantial.What makes the examples I gave circumstantial? Beside you conveniently claiming them as such?_________

the explained lightning bolt can never be produced by God. And before you jump to conclusions, no the lightning bolt wasn't a miracle before it was explained. You see, miracles have more than one criteria they must meet before we can be sure it is God and not "something else that we don't know"You and your forum friends seem to think that ALL unexplained phenomena is IMMEDIATELY explained by God's doing. When most of the time theologians just say "It isn't God's doing" and "we don't know what caused the event"

"Perfectness" is only one of the many "clues" revealed by God letting us know that it is indeed him who did it. This is not a circumstantial clue when it is accompanied by other clues. It's like a partial print can be a circumstantial clue if there is not enough of it._______

You have direct evidence. You are not accepting them as such ("No the car is not RED" "No, 1+1 does not equals 2") The best proof I can give you is that you have no idea what could be those "direct evidence" you think are missing. Like Zola said "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle"

Then replace "HB" by the new scientific discovery X. "If there are no X, then no scientific field will ever have any bearing on reality. It does not matter if there is a field of science for the study of a X which does not actually exist; it would be as relevant in the real world as a field for studying Harry Potter, or for Star Trek, or whatever you might name." Do we agree?

I absolutely do not agree. I will demonstrate why I don't agree with a comparison.

That's ok I only wanted you to disagree with it. Because it is basically what you told me as an argument against miracles.________

Saying that science study the real world is an over simplification of science. Saying that Theology study gods is an over simplification of theology.Theology also study the real world. And Science also study gods.If I were to make the comparison I would write it like that :If there are no gods, "theology" is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.If there is no HB, "science" is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.

Let's have a debate. I will take the role where I do not believe HB exist and you do not believe God exist. You might understand how it is useless to try to undermine miracles when it comes to prove the existence of God. It's like if I was trying to undermine the results found by the LHC when it comes to prove the existence of the HB.

To be continued in Part 7

« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 12:08:43 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

"perfectness" is one of YOUR terms used in your counter argument. _______

… with enough circumstantial evidences you can condemn the defendant as guilty. Anyway, I am not talking about more circumstantial evidence here. I am talking about the same evidence being sometime considered as circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint isn't full and we can only say that it matches X% the defendant fingerprint meaning it could be someone else fingerprint) and sometime non-circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint is full and we can say that it matches 100% the defendant fingerprint)Each characteristic of God found in miracle is like a partial print. When combined together they form a full print that allow to determine without a doubt God as the responsible of the act. These evidences are not circumstantial.If you prefer, another example, sometime you can find the murder weapon at someones place and this murder weapon is considered as circumstantial evidence (for the moment) because there are other pieces of the puzzle missing (like who's fingerprint is on it). The murder weapon alone might be not enough, but when combined with other evidence (like who's fingerprint is on it) it changes and the whole allow us to convict the culprit without the shadow of a doubt.Equally when you look at one evidence of God's culpability in the event, you might dismiss it as circumstantial evidence, but when combined with the other evidences...we are sure it's him who caused the event.

I hope I explained it enough (with examples!) so you understand your mistake when you claim that there are only circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence that God was responsible.___________

The very fact that the "best proof" you can give is the unsupported claim that I have no idea what direct evidence I would need is more than enough to demonstrate that your argument is badly flawed (not to mention being an ad hominem).

I think you might have misunderstand what this best proof proves. What do you understand that it proves?

Of course, to do that, you must demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality beforehand.

This phrase translate to me as : "you must demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality before demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality"__________

You are using the same argument over and over without showing us that it's not just something from your imagination. "because you cannot directly show that he did" is a claim of yours that need support. Do you have an idea of what evidence would directly show that he did it? Of course it should be other direct evidences than the ones I presented to you that you are dismissing just "because they are not direct evidence". You labelled them as "not direct evidence" without proving them as such. I don't think that you can prove them as such as long as you don't know what would be "direct evidence".__________

Support what? We agree that your argument doesn't make sense when used for something else similar!

Simply changing a few words around in someone else's argument does not actually counter their point. I could use the same means as you to try to prove that it is equally absurd to dismiss Harry Potter or Star Trek or Star Wars as being fictional, but it wouldn't accomplish anything meaningful.

No, you could not use the same means. That's what one of your friend, SevenPatch, tried then realized that he had to lie through is teeth if he wanted to continue the comparison.

I already told you I would not acknowledge any statement you made about the Higgs boson until you had satisfied me that you understood it, and asked you not to bring it up if you were unwilling to do that. You have not yet done so, and yet here you are, bringing it up again.

Refusing to continue the discussion for a reason that have no basis. I asked you, or maybe someone else, to cite the passage(s) that made them think I don't know enough about the Higgs Boson. No one did, I assumed that it was just a trick used to derail the conversation like it was used so many times before. Blaming the ignorance of the opposite party to avoid revealing our own.________

I respect you. I underline with care each and every fail in your counter argument. I try to help you realize how silly they sound once they (the counter arguments) are used in another subject and how silly they sound to me when you use them against miracles.

I gave you the opportunity to use whatever scientific discovery you want. You chose to continue stonewalling. That's ok. It proves that you don't have anymore counter arguments and that you don't want to admit it. (or that you have counter arguments but don't seem to be able to formulate them so they make sense what ever the subject might be)

You keep using this word "theory" over and over, even though I have already rebutted your nonsense.

No you have not. I proved that your counter arguments did not make any sense. They were all in your head/imagination, created only to contradict a phrase without anything supporting them.

________

You wouldn't be right. Spiderman do not theoretically cure people, and if he does it does not do it that way.So you CANNOT SAY SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. Just try, it required lifetimeS work to create a solid hypothesis based on reality about God. Do you have the equivalent for Spiderman? or someone/something else? Do they fit the event?________

The reason why it is God who did it is not the prayer alone. It is not one thing it is a multitude of things that make us sure it is God who did it.Again, and because you might have missed it.I believe that most of the answers about any event in Lourdes coming from the theologians reunion is in the form "we don't know who or what caused that event" and it is left at that. The event do not become a miracle and it is not regarded as proof of the existence of God.Why? because the event did not fit the theory/hypothesis made about God.They are allowed to say that even before all the medical tests have been made on the body.If you want to learn about all these cases that were presented as miracles and were dismissed not because we found a "scientific" cause but because it was clearly not God's doing, you can read a book about miracles or go to the Vatican Library and read about them.

I gave you the answer. Now you are insulting me by saying that I am ignorant? Why do you feel the need to do that? Attack me personally. Are you afraid of something? Like finally admitting that you don't have enough knowledge ton counter argue the fact that Miracles are the proof of the existence of God?

So far, your arguments have been so incredibly reproachable that modification will likely not help them.

They were all based on a lack of knowledge from the opposing party. I corrected them by giving them the opportunity to learn by themselves enough so they understand why their counter arguments simply don't work. Some of them categorically refused. Others just changed the subject. Others went stonewalling. Others did exactly what Zola did, looked the other way and kept thinking their counter-arguments were still valid._________

Falsify does indeed simply mean “proving something is false”. Like I said, be my guest. You keep claiming you can prove that unicorns do not exist, so do it. I don’t believe that you can, and until you actually prove that unicorns do not exist, I have no reason to believe it is possible. Time to put up or admit you are wrong.

That would be changing the subject.

God has been falsified many times by theologians. More times falsified ("we don't know what caused the event") than not ("God is responsible for the event")__________

you realize the questions would make your statement in peril so you stonewall. Nice.__________

If “Greatest Possible Being” is your definition, would you please define “Greatest”, “Possible” and “Being” in the context of your definition.

I think the dictionary can accomplish that better than me.Greatest : the superlative of great Great : 1. Very large in size.2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.3. Large in quantity or number : A great throng awaited us.4. Extensive in time or distance : a great delay.5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent : a great crisis.6. Of outstanding significance or importance : a great work of art.7. Chief or principal : the great house on the estate.8. Superior in quality or character; noble : "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden).9. Powerful; influential : one of the great nations of the West.10. Eminent; distinguished : a great leader.11. Grand; aristocratic.Possible : 1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.

Being : 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing. b. The totality of all things that exist.3. a. A person: "The artist after all is a solitary being" (Virginia Woolf). b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence. c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.Did I have to copy paste the dictionary for you?Are you going to present your counter argument against miracles being proof of the existence of God? Or do you plan to keep trying to change the subject?

Here is the analogy as I see it.Someone died yesterday, we found a gun and a full print on the gun. (and some other clues but let's focus on those 2)Someone was cured yesterday, we found that this person healed instantly and that the cure was permanent (and some other clues but let's focus on those 2)We find the owner of the gun and his fingerprint on the gun. We accuse him of murder and send him to prison.We find the person responsible for the instant and permanent healing, God.Such things as "real fingerprint" has been demonstrated. Same goes for the other cluesSuch things as "real instant healing" has been demonstrated. Same goes for the other cluesTherefore It hasbeen demonstrated that an alleged "God" interacts in the world and is responsible for healing people of their illnesses.As for who is God? he is the greatest possible being.

Let's demonstrate it like you did with water :1. Coherently define the term "God" (what 'thing' it refers to and consists of) in positive terms2. Demonstrate that such a being exists independently of human imagination 3. Demonstrate that such a being actually interacted with the world in a clear and non-vague demonstrable way

1. God - God : The greatest possible being.2. God - God is everywhere. He does not have a specific form or composition. He is the greatest possible being. He can be demonstrated to exist all over the world today in places like Lourdes, Vatican or any miracle related places in the world.3. God - The healings at Lourdes is an example of God interacting with the world. So are any other miracles. We can now, and have in the past, demonstrated the interaction of God with the world through observation, direct testing, and disinterested independent verification.

Do you want to try the same thing with the HB? The result will be similar. Miracle will still be the proof of the existence of God outside your body.

God is one of these things.miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body.

Is it still constructive when it's a lie? (meaning that it is not the truth)Why do you insist on dodging instead of addressing my points? Dodging what? Which point are you talking about? If I don't know the answer to a question i direct you toward where you could find the answer. If your argument is based on my lack of knowledge then I need to remind you that before I answered this question (about miracles) I took time to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me in the field of miracles. I took also time to make sure I wasn't saying false things about theology by talking with someone who graduated from theology. If you want answer to your general questions, I can help. If you need more specifics, you have to dig deeper in the libraries.Miracles are acts from God in this world and because we can see his acts in this world he exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

The post you are replying to, was reply number 1000 in this thread. You’re arguments have been reproached at every turn, by many individuals in many different ways, all very effectively debunking your claims and exposing your insistence on using logical fallacies. YOU, Lukvance, have dodged and avoiding supporting any of your arguments, claims and assertions.

it never have been demonstrated as such. These are claims about my behavior that cannot be supported. I remember missing one counter argument from median and he reminded me of it. I apologized and explain to him why his counter argument couldn't stick.

Like with the HB business I am still waiting for them. I am pretty sure that if you quote me I might be able to explain how I might have explain myself better so you might understand why my claim, argument, assertion was indeed supported.I shared with you many links on the web. All of these support the claim that I have made since the beginning of miracles (right after Graybeards example of scientific method) and others that I made afterwards.I remember asking for source for some of your counter argument. Not being able to give them should have made it fall._________

I understand that most of your arguments are results of the lack of knowledge, but I corrected them so you might understand how this position I took is rock solid and based on many lifetime of work made by all kind of people around miracles recognized by the Vatican._________

For example. All that has been said in this reply do not affect my arguments or your counter arguments. My arguments still remain the same and your counter arguments still remain destroyed.

People theorized that God would never heal a sinner. This was also falsified._________

The real greatest possible being must be every possible colors. That way he would always be blue and red at the same time...

Could you give me an examples about falsified evidence? Falsifiable evidence? And non falsifiable evidence?For the sake of simplicity let's pick 2 evidences regarding the miracles. immediate and long lasting cure.

We have to be clear about something, when it comes to weeping Mary and events of this order, the miracle is usually claimed for only ONE event. Even if the statue "cried" many times after that event. The event claimed as a miracle is only one, not all of them. It takes a lot of time and manpower before declaring a miracle. Why? Because we have to make sure that is it really God who did it. Not something that we don't know. (which I remind you is the most offered answer by the Theologians when presented with an event that has the possibility to be a miracle)

There is a "thing" causing those people to heal. This "thing" is named God. You can give it another name if you want. But you know it is not named "median" because the clues left by this "thing" (immediate and permanent healing...etc) do not correspond to the capabilities of "median" or "Doctor X".

I am not comparing fingerprints with the unexplained cases of people getting better. I am comparing fingerprints with ONE CLUE helping us determining why the person got better.We could have find a gun and fingerprints on it and the person died because she hit her head on the table. Gun and fingerprints are clues. With enough clues we understand the cause.When you say : "you do not know the circumstances and you have not provided us with sound reason for asserting that these instances were healings""I shared with you links that could help you reasonably assert that these persons where healed. If you don't want to trust me nor trust the professionals that were close to the patient then you are acting like Zola. Your attitude is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.

Keep bickering for definitions. If you think that's a good way to prove my claims wrong.As you said definition of certain terms are personal. Your red will never be my red. Your tree will never be drawn like my tree even if we are looking at the same tree. Each of us have his own definition of God. For me it is the GPB. For you it might be something else. It doesn't really matter in the case of proving his existence as the reality is that it is him that made the miracles. You want to wiggle and define God as such as it is not him, go ahead. Call a spoon a fork while you are at it. Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.What is your point? Finding that no definition is correct so because there are no correct definition and God? Then conclude that because there is no correct definition of God there is no way to find clues about him? I mean at one point I have to be reasonable and admit that you exist. I can keep refusing to admit your existence based on your definition of yourself. But what's the point?I don't know the definition of "median" I'm pretty sure we can argue on the definition on what is human by arguing on each word used on that definition...

To be continued in Part 8

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.

that sure is some arrogance there, brother. You are saying not only is nobody smart enough to figure these things out, but also that no one ever will be. I am pretty sure pride is a sin.

I'm saying that these things are already figured out and that only an idiot would think that they are not.I'm saying that smart people already looked at the event and realized what happened. They figured it out.I can only see that there have been miracles for more than 2000 years and that they have the same unique answer to "who is responsible?" : "God"

You invention of a God doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing about everything that exist.__________

You see, by using things like No2 No4 No5 No6 No9 and No10 you can create the illusion of a counter argument when in fact it is just your imagination running wild. It doesn't make sense as a counter argument.

Seeing someone heal is direct observation of god himself rearranging the molecules so the person is healed.__________

If you had read the book I suggested you to read, you would have realized that such records are opened and that scientist can fully and freely examine them. And wouldn't make another assumption, based on your lack of knowledge, that they are not available.

LOLEXACTLY! WE AGREE THAT HIS ARGUMENTS WERE NON SENSE.The purpose of switching "words" is underlining that the counter argument doesn't make sense. People who understand miracles -wich doen not include Graybeard at this point- can easily recognize just how ridiculous his argument actually sounds, because they understand how God theories are actually developed.

You see Theologians didn't follow his "#2, #4, #5, #6, #9, and #10" (or any of the other #s Graybeard put there) when they came up with the hypothesis of a God. They didn't make up the idea of God, they didn't claim it could do magic, they didn't make up a back story about God, they didn't claim God did magic things in this nonexistent back story he just dreamed up for his example, and they most certainly did not claim that there was only one God!

Thank you for understanding (or at least underlining) the point I was trying to make :

[in reply to Graybeard]Your counter argument is meaningless. Your invention of a God doesn't make sense.[...]I will use the Black Hole to prove the silliness of your counter argument.

When I used the HB it was for the same purpose. Underlining the silliness of your counter arguments.I am NOT actually saying that the Black Hole is an invention.I am NOT actually saying that the HB is whatever silly argument brought by you who forced me to use this to show how ridicule the argument is!

1. We do know that a god exists there are miracles to prove that.2. We say there are gods with evidence (miracles for physical evidence).3. We cannot say that a god has any property we want him to have. Of course we can add/discover him new properties at any time.

Here is where you sound the silliest to meOn rule 3 you say "We cannot invent further properties for Black Holes" when Stephen Hawkins just "discovered just a few months ago new properties for Black holes.[1]I agree he did not "invent" them. The same way we do not "invent" properties for God.

These healings have been predicted. Just like the black holes. "If someone suddenly "observe" light being absorbed by "something" in space people often attribute that to Black holes." Same thing than with Graybeard, your phrase does not make sense as an argument (or counter argument) Even if there is a meaning in English.

The only prediction about god that is consistently correct is the one that says, "god will behave as if he does not exist."

Or, maybe, the one that says "God will prove his existence to humans by directly act on their world" let's keep our options open __________

I know! that's why his argument about God is silly. Nobody invented God! He is "predicted" by theology.

I could continue with all your explanation later. But I think you understand the gist. The arguments presented by Graybeard were simply wrong.__________

I know!Nobody says God can do magic. The philosophy very specifically says what God can do, and none of it is magic...to the eyes of the people with sufficient knowledge. Any idiot could find that black holes do magic.__________

I am not saying that black holes do magical things. I am making a parody of Graybeard's arguments. Nobody - other than Graybeard - says that God do magical things.__________

… you made a mistake that I consider huge according the *defended word* ….People like Graybeard had since waged a baseless war against me just because people misunderstood how I used the example._________

You have to understand something, miracles happened, they have been happening for more than 2000 years.Each and everyone of them have been under scrutiny since it happened. People like you who do not want them to be proof of the existence of God have been _________

Fortunately as I explained to you before, God left enough clues so that we can be sure that he was the one responsible._________

The book confirm what the expert told me. That the Vatican open its records to scientists and doctors and anyone that is curious about them. The Vatican library is exactly that, a library._________

I'm pretty sure that if you look at the research made before this was declared a miracle, researchers looked for this particular kind of "trick" and proved that it was not possible in this case with the element at the disposition at the time._________

Ok for the thousand time. It is not the *forbidden word* and God that I equate. I use the *forbidden word* as an example to show how ridiculous/silly/wrong some counter-arguments are or at least look to me. _________

That's because you refuse to see Theology as a science. Or you think that only what is scientific is real.Theology according to the dictionary is "the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings"Basically how the idea of you offering a rose can be made real.

You want me to respond to your disagreement with the definition given by the dictionary!? Are you crazy?There is no way some little people like you can rebut the definition of the dictionary. If I was to allow that as a proper counter argument we would be in anarchy mode. No more order. The dictionary is wrong!

You are not arguing with me anymore, you are arguing with the dictionary. Come back to us.Miracles are the physical proof of the existence of God.

So, if over 99% of people who go to Lourdes will not get a miracle healing, why would any church approve of large groups of very sick people traveling there in search of a miracle healing?

That's because you don't count those spiritual healing. You only focus on the physical healing. I have heard many testimony of people and have lived one myself. The spiritual miracle is an experience of God that you live and afterwards you have no more doubts whatsoever of his existence. I can safely say that God "touched" me spiritually when I was 24. But these things don't count because you cannot see or test or touch or feel them yourself. You must rely on testimony.

That is up to post 1120 of the thread, which should be enough for you to start providing support for all of those unsupported arguments, claims and assertions.

No, it isn't related to what you're doing here at all. I applaud what you're doing here[1], and I'm supplying this link because I believe that there is a fairly high chance that you've done some significant cognitive damage to your brain by sifting through that much Lukvance. Visit the page for your neuron's sake.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Haha I'm joking. Don't read them all. Just read one book about miracles. Preferably the one I gave you the link to. It does support most of my claims. (She agrees with what I'm claiming and she has made her lifework to learn about medical miracles) "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World" from Jacalyn Duffin. Ask your closest library.

Finally, I have read the first reply of this thread. All I see are quotes from me. I don't see what was the unsupported claim. For example "I gave you logic proof." is a claim. This claim supported by the first reply. In the first reply you can find a logic proof.So "I gave you logic proof" is not an unsupported claim but still is listed as such in your list. Why?

Haha I'm joking. Don't read them all. Just read one book about miracles. Preferably the one I gave you the link to. It does support most of my claims. (She agrees with what I'm claiming and she has made her lifework to learn about medical miracles) "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World" from Jacalyn Duffin. Ask your closest library.

Finally, I have read the first reply of this thread. All I see are quotes from me. I don't see what was the unsupported claim. For example "I gave you logic proof." is a claim. This claim supported by the first reply. In the first reply you can find a logic proof.So "I gave you logic proof" is not an unsupported claim but still is listed as such in your list. Why?

Unsupported claims are not support for unsupported claims. Your first reply to this thread is now an addition to the list of unsupported claims.

Actually, the following phrases can at least be reasonably supported or are a general question:

Finally, I have read the first reply of this thread. All I see are quotes from me. I don't see what was the unsupported claim. For example "I gave you logic proof." is a claim. ________

Why?

To be clear, these few phrases are reasonably supported because you use the qualifiers “All I see” and “I don’t see”. It is reasonable to conclude that indeed you don’t see your statements as unsupported. In your mind, almost every statement you make is supported. What you don’t understand, is that they are not. Just because you think one of your statements is supported, doesn’t mean that it actually is.

As I’ve already explained, what you are doing is supporting your statements with other unsupported claims. Your unsupported claims are being supported by unsupported claims. Your entire argument is an illusion.

From what I can tell from the few free Essays provided in your first link, they are essays based on logical arguments for the existence of “God”. Unfortunately, all of these essays are unsupported, all of the logical arguments discussed have the same logical flaws that have already been exposed. This link to 123helpme.com is nothing more than unsupported claims which you are attempting to use to support your unsupported claims. Unsupported claims do not support unsupported claims.

Your second link http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/your-brain-on-prayer.htm is to an entertainment television show. It may be interesting, but unfortunately it does not qualify as support since it is not necessarily accurate, nor is it capable of providing all of the relevant information necessary to draw a reasonable conclusion. The goal of the TV show is not to provide evidential support. The goal of the TV show is to entertain which can lead to errors, omissions and exaggerations of the facts.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Of course. I understand that anything that will be presented to you will ever suffice. That's how powerful the mind of someone who do not want to know is.These links could support my claims. But because they are not your own words they could also not support my claims.The fact that it comes from another human being than you means (and you are right by saying so) that they might be wrong.In that case I will have you to tell me things about the world. And based on what you told me I will then demonstrate the existence of God. Would using you as a source be enough evidence to support my claims?Remember Zola? He said he wanted to see with his own eyes miracles and when the time came to look, he looked away in denial. Will you act like he did?

We atheists are the ones asking questions and actually wanting answers. Believers are the ones making up answers and playing pretend with not only their lives, but the lives of everyone they argue with.

They only proof there could ever be of a god would be that god itself. Since there isn't one, believers have to make up crap day in and day out. And they have to believe it. Because that's how powerful the mind of someone who wants to pretend can be.

Apparently the only way you'll ever find out there is no god is to die and have nothing happen afterwards. Which will be a little late.

Your fantasyland is not the same thing as our real world. I know you'll never learn that, but as long as we know, we can sort of allow for your faults. As long as you aren't actually shooting at us. A status quo which is not guaranteed by your faith.

Claim whatever you want. Just know that if it includes the implication that there really is a god, you're wrong even before you finish the sentence. All the excuses and flawed proofs in the world won't make your god real. Nor will your wishful thinking.

We don't have enough reasons to lie to ourselves to bother. You have only one, and it causes you to lie to yourself constantly. That you can't see the flaw in your non-thinking is not at all surprising. You don't know enough to correct it.

If there is a god, and he's letting me say this things to you, then he is nothing more than a tease, up in heaven, giggling at all the shit you're dealing with while he just watches. If he's real, he certainly isn't doing anything down here. Miracles my ass.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Of course. I understand that anything that will be presented to you will ever suffice.

This is nothing but another excuse so you don't have to actually provide support these pages and pages of claims you made. Worse, it's a way to shift the blame away from you, for not providing proper support for your claims, to other people, because "nothing that is presented to them will ever suffice". How about, instead of inventing excuses, you actually start supporting what you claim? That would solve the problem; you might not convince us, but we could have a meaningful discussion regardless.

Quote from: Lukvance

That's how powerful the mind of someone who do not want to know is.

I'd be careful with accusations such as this. They can be made to apply to you quite easily.

Quote from: Lukvance

These links could support my claims. But because they are not your own words they could also not support my claims.

This is not true. SevenPatch explained why those links did not actually support your claims; the 123helpme.com search simply points to essays based on logical arguments - the same kind of logical arguments you tried at the beginning of this thread before you decided to try a different approach. And yes, I did actually take a look for myself.

The first essay, René Descartes' Argument on the Existence of God, actually argues about how flawed it is to try use deductive reasoning to reach absolute certainty, and concludes with "Perhaps the existence of God was never meant to be proved through deductive reasoning and logic. There is always something to be said about believing in the existence God with nothing more than pure faith." How does that support your claims with evidence in the real world?

The second essay, The History of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God is nothing more than an attempt to buttress the CAEG with logic - everything has a cause, thus there must be a first cause, etc, etc. Despite what the author claims, it provides no actual support for any of this except for the idea that since we observe causes for everything, there must be a first cause. How does that support your claims with evidence in the real world?

I could go on, but three of those is already too many. Anyway, given that SevenPatch's judgment on the first link was valid, I see no reason to question his judgment on the second one. I don't see how bringing up unanswered questions on a television show, even a documentary, is going to support your claims with evidence in the real world. That means both of the links you gave failed to provide any substantive support of any of the claims SevenPatch brought up.

Quote from: Lukvance

The fact that it comes from another human being than you means (and you are right by saying so) that they might be wrong.

That's beside the point. Let me tell you a little story once about how I tried to describe a book I had just read about climate change to my roommate. I made a hash of it because I was trying to explain stuff that I didn't fully understand, and it showed. It isn't enough to just point to some book that managed to sway or convince you, and say that other people should read it. You have to understand the subject well enough to be able to summarize it, and make it sound like an interesting book that's worth reading. I had to spend time thinking about it, looking up other related stuff, and otherwise mentally digesting it in order to be able to present the points in the book effectively

So far, you sound like someone who's been swayed by books and the occasional in-person talk, but you haven't mentally digested what you learned well enough to be able to present anything compelling enough to make people believe that it's worthwhile. I also can't help but think that you have very little experience with formal methods of persuasion - that is, you don't really know how to write persuasively, and so when you try, it ends up coming off as a parody.

Quote from: Lukvance

In that case I will have you to tell me things about the world. And based on what you told me I will then demonstrate the existence of God.

You're still not getting the point. You cannot demonstrate the existence of a god by referring to someone else's words, or something someone else has written. You need physical evidence of it existing in the real world, and not by pointing to things you say are caused by it, when there are various other things which could have done so instead.

Honestly, I don't particularly care if your god exists or not. I have no desire for him to exist, and I also have no desire for him not to exist. It is far more important to me to make sure that a claim someone makes can be validated by evidence in the real world. That's why I've opposed you so strongly on miracles and whatnot, because you still have not shown that your god exists using evidence in the real world. What you're doing is pointing to events in the real world and saying that they're caused by your god, and basing it on your theology.

You've said that your god doesn't heal sinners. So, say you have two people who both recovered at Lourdes. Both had very rapid recoveries, both were permanent recoveries, and all those other criteria you've mentioned; however, one was an unrepentant sinner (and remained one after recovering), and the other was a Catholic (and remained one after recovered). Based on this criteria alone, you would probably say that the former wasn't a miracle, and the latter was. However, you would not have showed this using evidence; both people recovered from their maladies, and there was no functional difference between their recoveries. Therefore, the theological criteria "God does not heal sinners" would not be a valid scientific criteria because there would be no apparent difference in how they recovered based on it.

This is all intended to show you why it's important to support what you claim with more than logic, reasoning, and theology. That includes miracles that you're basing on theological criteria.

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Any false argument can be supported by false claims. All gods, of every religion, are invisible. But followers of every faith will tell you that their gods are real. You can't see them, but if you have faith or some variation of faith, you will know that whichever god you've chosen is real. Without that faith, you can't know whichever god is being discussed.

It is not coincidental that the catholic god is as invisible as the hindu gods and the jewish god and baptist god and the zoroastrian god. There is a reason for that.

You can provide phony information to support gods, bigfoot, fake moon landings, various conspiracy theories and anything else that one or more people are wrong about. And as long as you can find folks who want or need to believe any given wrong thing, they will accept the erroneous stories, the lies and the deception, because it takes them where they want to go. And because they don't value the truth anyway.

Sadly, the rest of us are stuck with you folks.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Any false argument can be supported by false claims. All gods, of every religion, are invisible. But followers of every faith will tell you that their gods are real. You can't see them, but if you have faith or some variation of faith, you will know that whichever god you've chosen is real. Without that faith, you can't know whichever god is being discussed.

It is not coincidental that the catholic god is as invisible as the hindu gods and the jewish god and baptist god and the zoroastrian god. There is a reason for that.

You can provide phony information to support gods, bigfoot, fake moon landings, various conspiracy theories and anything else that one or more people are wrong about. And as long as you can find folks who want or need to believe any given wrong thing, they will accept the erroneous stories, the lies and the deception, because it takes them where they want to go. And because they don't value the truth anyway.

Feigning ignorance and playing word games will not demonstrate that your god exists. It only demonstrates that you are as petty and childish as the god you believe in. Yes, I agree with ParkingPlaces. It should be obvious that the kind of support that I am interested in is one of sufficient evidence. The same kind of evidence that any rational person uses to separate reality from fantasy. Your games will not convince me to forgo rationality to accept fantasy as reality. You may be able to trick or fool someone who doesn't place truth above what they want to believe is true.

Please do not reply to this thread again unless you have any kind of reasonable evidence which demonstrates the existance of "God". That is what I am interested in. I am not interested in your games.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Any false argument can be supported by false claims. All gods, of every religion, are invisible. But followers of every faith will tell you that their gods are real. You can't see them, but if you have faith or some variation of faith, you will know that whichever god you've chosen is real. Without that faith, you can't know whichever god is being discussed.

It is not coincidental that the catholic god is as invisible as the hindu gods and the jewish god and baptist god and the zoroastrian god. There is a reason for that.

You can provide phony information to support gods, bigfoot, fake moon landings, various conspiracy theories and anything else that one or more people are wrong about. And as long as you can find folks who want or need to believe any given wrong thing, they will accept the erroneous stories, the lies and the deception, because it takes them where they want to go. And because they don't value the truth anyway.

Sadly, the rest of us are stuck with you folks.

A yes would have suffice for now. Do you agree with him sevenpatch?

If I had only said yes, you would have asked for clarification. I saved a step.

And as for the last post, you haven't been able to support your claims using your own words, what makes you think you can do better using the words of others? If you actually had a god, providing corroborating evidence would be far easier. Lacking one, its kinda hard, huh?

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

As I said. People like E.Zola are everywhere.I believe that these people only trust themselves and no one else. That is why I want to use another approach than giving other people (professional opinion) opinions to support my claims. He said it and was right about it, they can be wrong, they can lie, they can do all sorts of things that would make anyone but himself unacceptable as support to my claims. So if sevenpatch would kindly answer all my questions we could get to it.